It was the literal definition of subterfuge!It was gobbledygook of the highest order.
It was the literal definition of subterfuge!It was gobbledygook of the highest order.
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/
No this is snake oil.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.
Yes BJC normaly a company I would buy from, but with this series of cables they jumped the shark.I thought BJC was above this sort of high priced stuff.
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 )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 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 .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
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.
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.
I think it is pretty obviously that the whole reply is designed to be obtuse and meandering in the hopes of losing the reader.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.
“Hearing” = “Believing”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 ...
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".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?
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.
How easy would it be for you to do this test yourself?
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.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?
. 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.
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.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.