Belden ICONOCLAST XLR Cable Review

[srkbear]

It was gobbledygook of the highest order.

It was the literal definition of subterfuge!

 

[ROOSKIE]

EDIT:
Email response from chief designer, Galen to my review:

--------
Hi AMIR,

We got it exactly half right. We have a little distortion added in.

ICONOCLAST is designed to get ALL the typical variables optimized that we can MEASURE and CALCULATE, and not just Vp. We do hear TIME based changes to the EM wave. Pure resistive amplitude is a passive distortion. A cable that is resistive only would be ideal. ICONOCLAST is optimized to better is better electrical. To say ICONOCLAST is “only” about Vp propagation times (still very fast in any cable as it is the speed of light in the dielectric) is not totally right. We improve Vp linearity and ALL the related variables, too. And yes, those include the foundation of R, L and C common to all cables. ICONOCLAST can’t remove physics any more than create new physics. It can show what we don’t know, though.

When you improve a variable in audio cable, it effects related variables as well. When Vp coherence is improved (and Vp coherence DOES change the cable’s properties or physics is wrong) it also impacts the OPPOSITE frequency range by lowering the open-short impedance. BOTH are tied together and BOTH need to be improved. Higher capacitance and individual wire loop DCR impacts the low frequency impedance. And yes, this changes how the amp/speaker and cable interact as we have a different reactive network or again, phsics as we know it is wrong and it isn’t. Unlike RF, where stuff is steady state, analog is an awkward frequency range in constant transition at every frequency point. The impacts of this are going to be different based on the total reactive network…it has to be. A cable’s impedance to a speaker at a frequency are NOT matched! We have simple reflections (ZOBEL networks use this property).

The application of more individually insulated and small wires splits the current into smaller signal values per wire, and this smaller wire improves skin effect, lowers current removes to reduce the proximity effects (proportional to current). Managed as a network more small wires can INCREASE the CMA area and lower DCR. IC and speaker cable use different characteristics of the technology. IC cables have no proximity effect to even consider into a high impedance load for example.

Inductance is wrapped around all of the capacitive effects. One BONDED speaker cable pair measures 0.126uH/foot inductance nominal. To lower that inductance value you need to reduce the loop area with DISTANCE and EM field CANCELLATION. Distance is already at a minimum with BONDED pairs thus we introduce EM field cancellation into the design’s. The speaker cable weave pattern used in ICONOCLAST speaker cable does exactly that. Cross weave and SEPARATE polarity paths reduce inductance to 0.08 uH/foot. It works as the physics says it should.

The speaker cable weave also limits the capacitance as the dielectric (inductance isn’t sensitive to the dielectric properties) and physical and periodic separation paths LOWER total capacitance as the average distance is increased. Every wire path is the exact same physical length, so the cable thinks it is “one” wire. Again, the physics says it will work, and it does. We ideally want to hold L and C to reasonably low values and JUST use DCR to optimize the cable if we can, that’s the end goal in a perfect world. In practice we allow higher capacitance in a speaker cable (-3 dB roll off in is the GHz, but amplifier reactive loading is a concern) to lower inductance for current delivery. In IC we like to see low capacitance as it is a voltage signal with low conductor loop DCR.

The IC cable, RCA and XLR use like physics to alter L and C. More smaller wires in a star quad reduces Inductance, but it ALSO has to raise capacitance. It does, from 12.5 pF/foot to 17.5 pF/foot nominal. This is expected as the physics says it has to be. We also increase the CMA area for longer runs. Both the RCA and XLR measure the same swept open-short impedancd by design. The RCA’s double braid improves RCA cable issue of DCR being added between devices and this can aggravate ground loops as the ground isn’t as uniform as it should be. Again, standard physics.

Belden’s task was to IMPROVE every aspect of an analog cable and we did that. We have never put to book a “sound”. A loud speaker’s specs have ZERO real meaning until you listen to ALL of the parameters at once in your room. A cable by itself isn’t ever used, but with an amplifier and speaker. Physics DEMANDS that the introduction of a reactive AC network is derived from the system’s total load to the amplifier. That you, and us too, fail to make this distinction we KNOW is true, is just the short comings of what and how we measure this dynamic interaction. We KNOW for a fact that this reactive interaction is different when we change any of the three variables, amp, cable and speakers. This fact alone suggest we can only calculate and measure certain things. I can relate as I’m restriced to this issue too, but it DOES NOT provide the final answer as to how this complex network is changing things.

Your test illustrate the limits of attribute testing. It can’t show differences in the reactive network when physics says it is definitely there. Saying I can’t hear that isn’t the same as then trying to “prove” the cable electrical don’t impact the RIGHT tests. R, L and C changes do and will alter the analog signal and they will and they have to or again, the physics is broken.

ICONOCLAST will sell what I can calculate and measure, same as we’ve provided since 2015. Our job is to provide properly made cable with KNOWNS adjusted to better suit analog. We sell the entire range of electrical cable. ALL designs will be measured and shown to work as the physics says they should. We have no magic that needs to be accepted. The same properties that make your and our “generic” cable are still at play but to a higher degree in ICONOCLAST to reach better electrical. That’s what the market wants to try and that’s what we make. The effort to make better cable is no more wasted than it has been to provide the products we buy today and improved over the last 100 years. PRICE, not performance, is the barrier to entry and with proper pricing volume there is ZERO reason to not use better R, L and C cable. None. Why would you? Analog is an addative distortion and every step matters.

Your simple testing, and mine, is what blinds us to the changes that physics is providing in each design and yet, we still can’t test them. Welcome to the club. Show me the measurements the do capture the physics in play and we’re good. This isn’t saying, “I can’t hear that”. Your tested data, although accurate to the tests resolution, is incomplete “proving” there is no difference when we know for a fact there is. A simple device is limited by what we know today and doesn’t change what’s left we can’t test. It is a tool to stay on track, it doesn’t answer all of the networks actual properties.

Sitting behind a knowledge limited test fixture won’t change things any more than making zip cord speaker cable forever. The limits need to be pushed in testing and design forcing us to ask, “as different as this really is, why can’t we test the tertiary elements that HAVE TO BE showing up in the “tested” data?”. When an analog design changes, the output has to change or the physics has stopped and it didn’t. We stopped. We make properly made cable to push those testing limits.

Best,
Galen Gareis
-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

OMG, talk about talking with a mouth full of rocks. How did he survive spewing this much BS?
Hilarious.

I'll be showing this to my GF's son so he can see what is possible when it comes to attempting to fool us as he runs loops explaining why his homework was never turned in. Gonna up his fibbers game, if he gets as good at lying as Galen I am in trouble though.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Thought provoking review. No surprise that the cable doesn't make any difference!

What's interesting is that the company seems genuine in its intention. Not 'snake oil' but some sort of fundamental blindness to the basic issue that there's just nothing to hear.
Astounding waste of time and money.

Or, as Amir says, they just need to run proper blind tests and then we can look again.

No this is snake oil.
Real snake oil.
We have just forgotten that the best snake oil is hidden in "good intentions" and backed by someone who seems just so sincere and genuine that he must really believe his load of Crap, he wouldn't lie.

They are going to make astounding amounts of money on these cables and they know it and they know it doesn't make any measurable nor audible sonic difference at all.
Of course it will be easy to measure the profit margin.

Insidious.

 

[Mnyb]

I thought BJC was above this sort of high priced stuff.

Yes BJC normaly a company I would buy from, but with this series of cables they jumped the shark.

Seeing the designers response just made it worse .
Mr Galen clearly confuses things and have fallen for a fallacy . Yes there are many many clearly measurable and theoretical factors in a cable . But what are the impacts for the indended use case ?

AMIR s measurment shows the end results the conected products performs electrically identical and can not be distinguished within the limits of what we can call “the audio bandwidth” Amir’s measurement covers more than we can hear in both frequency and dB . If it’s audible it ought to show up inside this measurement.

So yes an even more detailed measurement for example even higher in frequency could eventually show something, but it would not be relevant at all.

This is a thing with cables they actually do something and with contorted enough methods they also measure differently but it’s still a null result if you interpreted the data correctly .

Amir has been nice enough to provide a relevant measurement of the cables in use , therefore it’s shows no difference and it’s easy to understand for all readers no rabbit hole of transmission line theory or skin effects dielectric absorption etc .

 

[Mnyb]

Have you done any blind testing? It may be that $30 BJs are just as good as the far more expensive ones and perceived differences attributable to expectation bias. There is a clear opportunity for some extensive research...

There can be olfactory input at the lower tier offerings the blindfold won’t hide and if blindfolded there can be a surprise payment you only discover later ( when not finding your wallet )

 

[Mnyb]

As always I thank Amir for his excellent and tireless work.

@amirm Do you see a point where you would consider areas like cables a completely solved issue or do you see the value in continuing to debunk these audio myths on a regular basis? I can see the additional value here as a new test was introduced.

No one who is a regular here could be in the least surprised by the outcome. As there is only one of you, with only so many hours in the day, I feel like beyond a point this is not the best use of your talent.

The reviews that excite me the most will always be finding the (Wharfedale) diamonds in the rough

There are many solved issues in audio , even regulars on this fora beliefs “stuff” so sadly I think he still needs to do one of these from time to time .

Example you can on daily basis see evidence that many forum members still thinks that competently designed DAC’s have a sound signature .

 

[Mnyb]

Actually ... I don't much care how much money my friends and clients waste on cables. That's their own foolishness and none of my business.

However; when I am assuming the warranty for a rather expensive piece of equipment, I do care that they aren't breaking it with their idiocy. My conditions always state that broken connectors and damaged face plates are not covered. You break the connectors or bend that back panel, I go to hourly rates... and I've been known to work rather slowly at times.

I slightly disagree a bit

this is a general miss use of limited resources. and that in the end impacts us all .

The raw material could have been used to build something better .

Rich peoples money can be given to a more worthy business .

It sort of reminds me of large part of SSSR communist industry which for all intends was destruction of natural resources to build worthless products.

If we lived in an unlimited world where our actions did not impact anyone else your point is well taken . But I don’t think we live in such a world.

And all customers for this kind of products are not billionaires.
If they still have a family ( is it one wife per 200 litre net volume of your home made subwoofers ) crazy financial decisions impacts the rest of their family. In countries with no free university system it could impact the future of their kids and thier education. So I think audio snake oil is a real problem.

 

[DonH56]

RF is not in general steady-state compared to "analog" (I think he meant to say "audio" frequency); it depends upon the signal modulation. Think various spread-spectrum signals, various modulation schemes, QAM, etc. etc. etc. Also things like NRZ and PAM4 (etc.) data transmission for PCIe, SAS/SATA, Ethernet, etc. that reach well into the GHz range, and things like RADAR that are pulse-based. Regardless, the same math and logic applies, the physics does not really change at lower frequencies (much of it gets easier since a lot of wire effects that are critical in GHz RF signals are negligible at audio frequencies).

Reducing C in general means increasing L. You can change the dielectric, true, and reduce C by using one with a lower dielectric constant (epsilon). But if you are looking at impedance, something usually considered a "don't care" at audio frequencies and impedances, then inductance rises when you reduce capacitance, all else equal.

As for reflections and such, they are readily measurable using RF equipment but should die out well before they are audible. See e.g. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-analysis-of-speaker-cables-reflections.7154/ for a few simple trials (yes, this has come up before -- I wrote that in 2011, but the concepts are from the early days of radio over 100 years ago).

If I had @amirm 's time and funding I suppose I could buy my own RF test equipment and measure these cables vs. others, but I don't, and it hardly seems worthwhile. He said we couldn't measure it anyway, yes? I suppose I could take them to work, but again as mentioned earlier I am not sure our 40~100 GHz equipment reaches much below 1 MHz let alone 20 Hz. And I've said before that, while I could sign out a piece of equipment to take home, I am nervous about bringing a piece of equipment worth more than my house to my house.

 

[manisandher]

I don't understand all the animosity towards Galen Gareis. If you don't understand or agree with something specific in his reply to Amir, then point it out.

For me, this is the key point in Amir's reply:

Importantly, I also performed a null test. I captured the signal from both your XLR cable and a much cheaper one. The results nulled to threshold of hearing (-115 dBFS) which indicates no difference in sound with very high confidence. I further post the differential audio file which is silent. If there were changes to the waveform, this test would have detected it. But it did not.

Assuming the null test was performed correctly, this is really hard to refute.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I don't understand all the animosity towards Galen Gareis. If you don't understand or agree with something specific in his reply to Amir, then point it out.

For me, this is the key point in Amir's reply:



Assuming the null test was performed correctly, this is really hard to refute.

I think it is pretty obviously that the whole reply is designed to be obtuse and meandering in the hopes of losing the reader.

He basically says that the benefits of the cable can't be tested and yet somehow they must be there.

I am calling a spade a spade here. I find it well beyond reasonable somebody would write what he wrote and say what he said with good intentions. Snake oil.

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

I've been wondering about it for some time too....
If the whole cable thing was truly legit, the very least they could have done to protect their product's validity and their brand name in general is to show their progress of creating a product. To convince people that they are pros and they know what they're doing. Best to them would of course to refute all the objective measurements and previous controlled testing results but I guess they can't.

Like in order to sell a "highly-specialized" ,"audiophile-grade" cable there must have been several steps right? From R&D progress to the finishing touches. Then they would need to somehow make sure their cables are all identical, no dents no wild variations. And I think there's no way they could perform all those tests without proper equipment and measurements (they cannot just do proper QC by using their own ears and eyes). Even if they claim there are differences that cannot be measured, there should have been a measurement or a basis that led to them creating their product in the first place. Yet they don't show that too.

Like someone in this thread said, silence is deafening. And the way I see it, this silence is good for us consumers in general. Some folks say Amir is beating a dead horse with those cable measurements but I think the more the merrier, it helps to raise the awareness better, as well as to stockpile evidences that will remain true until proven incorrect.

Maybe audiophile folks will read this, and maybe some of them will refuse to believe, but now they know the objective picture a little better, eventually some of them will consider pros and cons more than they do now. I know a handful of folks who kind of got out of the craze of audio accessories that way, all thanks to places and people like ASR and Amir.

 

[Blumlein 88]

One of the things worth noting in this cable industry is the story of Audioquest. Maybe the 2nd or 3rd cable specialist after the Fulton Cables. At least starting by the time Monster and MIT did. AQ's owner was an audio salesmen or traveling audio rep to dealers of high end gear. At first they used the name Livewire I believe. He "invented" a great sounding cable design. Basically very early on AQ cables are litzwire construction with expensive materials. Fancy ends. And a good story, a good sales pitch. It hasn't changed since.

Could someone with no technical background empirically discover something? Sure. But the same idea over and over and over for years getting better and better and better and better still? The only evolution of his cable mantra was the addition of battery powered shielding. Face it, the guy stumbled upon a good game and has played it very well. A good sales and marketing gig. Oh, and ever increasing pricing for the best of their line.
Look at how long this has been going on. If each advance was a 1% improvement we'd be approaching at a minimum a 150% improvement in cable sound. Sure enough that should sound like night and day. Something I'd always wished someone would do is a good blind test of early, early AQ cable and the current offering. No doubt AQ would claim deterioration due to age. In which case if true, all we are really doing is replacing cable with newer one every so often. Of course all we are really doing is buying into a good sales pitch we can't resist.

This cable business is just shilling patent medicine all over again with much better pay.

Oh, and if you get a great null like Amir did, there is nothing there. Nulling is pretty hard to do well because anything corrupts the result. Any, tiny, thing, and your null is shot to sh*te. If one wished, one could have the Iconoclast designer setup a whole system and monitor the speaker posts with a good ADC and do nulling to show something if there is anything to system interaction. You are likely to get the same result however in the audio band. The other question you have for all these guys, if you can't measure it how do you manage your design? I'm a designer, I'm gonna make a better widget, but I don't know how its better I can't try various design approaches and test for the optimum because what is better is unmeasurable. Make any sense?

 

[DavidMcRoy]

Don't know if that would make us any wiser, because according to this article:

"He (* Gareis) admits to hearing a difference between the various copper variants – and agrees it isn’t measurable. And that is why the cables are offered in a variety of copper pulls. Each pair of Iconoclast cables have similar LCR values, are built with exactly the same dielectric, geometry, and connectors. Any audible differences would only be attributed to the copper used."

Not measurable, and no difference in a null test. Hearing is believing ...

“Hearing” = “Believing”

I hope Geert’s irony was lost on noone.

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

Oh, and if you get a great null like Amir did, there is nothing there. Nulling is pretty hard to do well because anything corrupts the result. Any, tiny, thing, and your null is shot to sh*te. If one wished, one could have the Iconoclast designer setup a whole system and monitor the speaker posts with a good ADC and do nulling to show something if there is anything to system interaction. You likely to get the same result however in the audio band. The other question you have for all these guys, if you can't measure it how do you manage your design? I'm a designer, I'm gonna make a better widget, but I don't know how its better I can't try various design approaches and test for the optimum because what is better is unmeasurable. Make any sense?

Yeah that's what I've been wanting to see companies answer to. They can't just "design" by spending nights and days twisting cables in different formations/patterns, wrap around different insulation materials, or change the purity ratio until they found a formula that made them go "wow, that sounds good".
If there was real discovery and improvement in cables, there should be a basis, a foundation for them to work upon. And that basis cannot be "Me and some other guys heard it well" because that cannot account for credibility of the brand as well as stability in quality control aspect (like if they have a cold and their ears are clogged are they just going to halt producing altogether?).

Also if we go by their route and presume that those improvements are real and easily audible, they are still slight sound adjustments here and there, not something to bewilder for.

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

All you guys want a blind test when you don't need one. If you can't hear a clear difference live switching it yourself then it's not a product you should buy. Why you think you can't tell the difference between two pieces of equipment so clearly because you are overwhelmed by your own biases makes me wonder how you decide whether or not food is safe to eat. I can easily hear the difference between 16 ga and 10 ga cable hooked up to a subwoofer listening to pink noise in a length of 5 feet. More bass in thicker cable. I bet $100 they'd measure the same in Amir's tests though.

Don't think I'm right? How easy would it be for you to do this test yourself? Oh, that's right, if you hear a difference you'll assume you are biased.

 

[Geert]

I can easily hear the difference between 16 ga and 10 ga cable hooked up to a subwoofer listening to pink noise in a length of 5 feet.

The cable being reviewed is not a speaker cable. For speaker cables we all know resistance matters (but it's weekend so I'm not going to spend time on doing the math for your example).

How easy would it be for you to do this test yourself?

How difficult would it be for someone hearing differences to do a controlled test? If I would have designed a stellar interconnect, organising and publishing such a test would be the first thing I would do myself.

 

[Koeitje]

One of the things worth noting in this cable industry is the story of Audioquest. Maybe the 2nd or 3rd cable specialist after the Fulton Cables. At least starting by the time Monster and MIT did. AQ's owner was an audio salesmen or traveling audio rep to dealers of high end gear. At first they used the name Livewire I believe. He "invented" a great sounding cable design. Basically very early on AQ cables are litzwire construction with expensive materials. Fancy ends. And a good story, a good sales pitch. It hasn't changed since.

Could someone with no technical background empirically discover something? Sure. But the same idea over and over and over for years getting better and better and better and better still? The only evolution of his cable mantra was the addition of battery powered shielding. Face it, the guy stumbled upon a good game and has played it very well. A good sales and marketing gig. Oh, and ever increasing pricing for the best of their line.
Look at how long this has been going on. If each advance was a 1% improvement we'd be approaching at a minimum a 150% improvement in cable sound. Sure enough that should sound like night and day. Something I'd always wished someone would do is a good blind test of early, early AQ cable and the current offering. No doubt AQ would claim deterioration due to age. In which case if true, all we are really doing is replacing cable with newer one every so often. Of course all we are really doing is buying into a good sales pitch we can't resist.

This cable business is just shilling patent medicine all over again with much better pay.

Oh, and if you get a great null like Amir did, there is nothing there. Nulling is pretty hard to do well because anything corrupts the result. Any, tiny, thing, and your null is shot to sh*te. If one wished, one could have the Iconoclast designer setup a whole system and monitor the speaker posts with a good ADC and do nulling to show something if there is anything to system interaction. You are likely to get the same result however in the audio band. The other question you have for all these guys, if you can't measure it how do you manage your design? I'm a designer, I'm gonna make a better widget, but I don't know how its better I can't try various design approaches and test for the optimum because what is better is unmeasurable. Make any sense?

Wasn't the Monster brand created to provide competition for AQ? Even though those who started Monster saw no benefits the market just asked for cables like that due to AQ.

 

[MattHooper]

. I can easily hear the difference between 16 ga and 10 ga cable hooked up to a subwoofer listening to pink noise in a length of 5 feet. More bass in thicker cable. I bet $100 they'd measure the same in Amir's tests though.

If you think they’d measure the same, what is your explanation for why you hear a difference? What is actually going on to change the sound so audibly?

Don't think I'm right? How easy would it be for you to do this test yourself? Oh, that's right, if you hear a difference you'll assume you are biased.

If two cables measure the same in terms of known audible thresholds, yes that would be the best assumption.

Why do you think measurements were developed in the first place? One reason: Measuring devices are developed to extend beyond the limits of our own senses. If you think you can hear things beyond the currently understood limitations of the human ear, that’s an extraordinary claim. And that is one area where blind testing can help - you could show evidence of your claim by passing blind tests. Until then you can claim to hear everything under the sun that “won’t show up in the measurements.” If you think you hear angels singing through one cable and not another, have fun, but don’t expect anyone should simply take this on your say-so.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Wasn't the Monster brand created to provide competition for AQ? Even though those who started Monster saw no benefits the market just asked for cables like that due to AQ.

Monster Cable was founded as a company in 1979. The founder had an M.E. degree from Caltech and quit his job working on laser fusion at Lawrence Livermore labs. He played drums for a band from 1974 until starting his company.

Ray Kimber started his company in 1979 as well. He was previously working for sound and lighting companies doing installations in California disco's.

AQ as a company started in 1980 in California. The founder was an audio salesman.

Bruce Brisson had an interest in cables and worked for Monster prior to creating his own company in 1984. I think he was an E.E.

Robert W. Fulton pre-dated all those by a few years. He made many music related items, was trained in electronics, and eventually started making premium audio cables as part of FMI's (Fulton Musical Industries) products.

All this is the USA. I don't know about other countries. I think there was probably activity with cabling in the Japan hifi world in the 1970s.

 

[iLoveCats]

I just want to say that the common products from Blue Jeans like 4S11 Canare and Belden 5000 are decently priced and when terminated by Blue Jeans are fantastic workmanship.