Cables: Time is of the Essence, Part 3
[We began this series of articles by Belden engineer Galen Gareis in Copper #48 , and continued it in Copper #49. We now present the conclusion of Time is of the Essence, on time-based distortions in audio cable design,—Ed.]
7) Dielectric effects
Dielectrics have a disproportionate impact upon weak electromagnetic signals. Four-fifths or more of the current magnitude at audio frequencies is below 3,000 Hz, and this clumping is often called “spectral density”. This energy does not stop in plastic or air. It emanates out in an inverse-log power decay through all the materials it encounters along the way.
Electromagnetic fields are most influenced by dielectrics nearest the wire. Using too many small wires splits up the current, and starts to allow the dielectric to influence the sound more and more, negating the advantage of dielectric uniformity. The electromagnetic field is strongest nearest the wire, decreasing with the square of the distance moving out away from the wire. With smaller wire, the electromagnetic signal moves from being in the dielectrics to being around it, as well.
So weaker signals are affected more by the dielectric in general, as they decay the most as they move away from the wire (a great proportion of the signal is in the dielectric). Also, weaker signals are affected most by the dielectric closest to the wire, especially as we go up in frequency. This can be measured by how easily velocity of propagation is nearest to one (100%) for a given cable size. The better the dielectric, the closer the VP will be to one, and at the smallest size.
If we use two dielectrics in layers, say air and plastic, we also see the signal slow as it moves from air to plastic, and speed up as it moves from plastic to air. Some cables (including the Belden Iconoclast) put air nearest the wire, where the signal strength is highest. This reduces the outer plastic dielectric’s contribution to the group velocity, and translates to a lower capacitance number when we use the cable in audio applications. It also significantly reduces the cable’s SIZE.
8) DCR influences
This is mostly a speaker cable issue, as the amplifier’s negative feedback loop works best with ZERO cable resistance. To control the drivers— the woofers being the worst back-EMF devices the amplifier sees— we need as much CURRENT as possible to be delivered to offset their unwanted motion. The higher the cable resistance, the less current the amplifier can generate to manage the back EMF from the speaker. We need to manage DCR with many smaller wires, yet still arrive at low inductance and capacitance, too.
A second effect of too-high DCR is that it can vary the speaker’s frequency response. Voltage at a given frequency dropped across the cable is signal that doesn’t get to the speaker. This is frequency dependent in complex speaker loads.
On interconnect cables, the small to near-zero currents allow small wires to be used to improve current uniformity and lessen proximity. Here we want flat Rs electricals measured out above the audio band.
I will go out on a limb and say stranded wire doesn’t seem to “measure up” to its bad reputation in my studies. I see no need to use them as the cost goes up, and the advantages go down as I already design with small AWG wires, negating the need for the flexibility stranding provides. Bad sound with stranded wire has always been due to the dielectric design, and not the stranding.
9) Cable symmetry
How do you make a complex cable’s cross section look like one simple wire electrically, and have every wire sound the same?
Matching multiple wires into a complex structure isn’t easy to do well. The ideal cable has one wire that has exactly the same structure and length as the opposite-polarity wire. However, if we run two large conductors in parallel, the inductance, capacitance, proximity effects and skin effects between them will be less than ideal. Running several smaller conductors in a single polarity and weaving them around each other to increase the average distance between the center of any one conductor and another in an opposite polarity will reduce the inductance. A carefully designed weave pattern will help cancel out magnetic fields, further lowering inductance. Does it work? A single bonded pair made for Iconoclast has a 0.196 uH/foot inductance. One we complete the cable assembly inductance drops to 0.08 uH/foot.
The use of BONDED pairs in each polarity helps cancel the magnetic fields. No magnetic field means zero inductance! The two flat-polarity halves pulled tightly together with a textile wrap keeps loop are to a minimum, further keeping inductance in check. The proximity effect is lowered by using many, many (fourth eight!) small wires. Alternating current near one another lessens conductor efficiency, especially with larger wire. High current in speaker cables mean that proximity effect is a larger problem than in interconnects. The weave pattern keeps wires less-parallel to one another. The final results are plenty measurable, and are best in class in the designs evaluated.
However, more small wires with a dielectric between them can create a nice big capacitor which negatively affects the signal. Inductance and capacitance have an inverse relationship, so to get both intrinsically low, you can’t go “whole hog” on the opposite variable. This means a compromise, and yes, audio is a whole set of compromises. The end view explains why this is so in the speaker cable. The bonded wires “trade places” between the minima distance and the maxima distances. The weave insures wires end up at the same electrical length. This keeps every wire electrically the same, and lowers bulk capacitance while the bonded pairs lower inductance. The tight spacing and magnetic cancellation in “star quad” cross-over points are unique their ability to lower capacitance and inductance, both, and still address multiple cable issues even handedly and at the expense of nothing. Well, except being easy to make. We’re not an easy crowd, though, are we?
Wire direction showed no impact on the sound. But, the manufacturing process insures ALL the wires are “directional”, so flip the cable around at will if you like, it’s free. I fully refrain from setting critical design goals on immeasurable attributes. As proof to this, we sell the exact same designs in three copper grades, separated by the copper’s costs. The copper quality factor has zero influence on the design, and all measurements are identical. Are there differences in sound? Yes, there are, but the influencing factors do not derail the design between the copper draw sciences.
10) Attenuation at audio frequencies
The common assumption is that better cables are better simply because they cause less linear attenuation. However, when cables are designed for time-based issues, they clearly sound better. The effects of more- or less-linear attenuation are far harder to hear. With a non-optimized cable, attenuation is not linear, and resistance increases from 5,000 Hz onwards in the standard 1313A 10 AWG zip cord style cable, and is essentially a wall of totally lost energy above 20 KHz.
Taking the audio band from 100 Hz to 20 KHz, we see a 6.75% change in overall impedance with Iconoclast, versus a 71.8% change for the 1313A cable. But, this is NOT just attenuation per say, but skin effect and proximity effect variables that effect higher frequencies too.
Summary
The important thing to remember with all audio cables is that arrival times are more important than raw speed down the wire. We call it “sound quality” when we use the cable, but it really is the time-alignment of all the signals. The human brain hears superimposed time alignment and amplitude preservation first, everything else a distant second. Efforts to manage phase (lower inductance) and VP are important. Attributes (smaller wires, lower L and C) that are time-dependent seem to provide the most benefit.
By touching upon some of the considerations of a cable designer, I hope to convey how complex this issue is, and that a cable is not “just a cable”. I’ve often said, “Rest assured, if there is snake oil in these products, it sure looks like physics to me. All the data is measured and real.”
[We will be featuring more articles on cable design by Galen Gareis, with an assist from Gautam Raja, in the near future.—Ed.]
I really appreciate this series of articles (and the discussions it has elicited) – long over due in such environs.
Keep up the great work.
Looking forward to more…
You’re welcome! Thanks for reading, and for your kind comments!
Many thanks to PS Audio for the time it took to get the cable paper to print. It is a misunderstood subject that can even seem “boring” as those that haven’t used optimized cable. That optimization process is tough to do right.
I want to make some thirty thousand foot views of all this is summary. The ear is a TIME based device above all else. It isn’t very good at amplitude sensitivity, as we need to know WHERE the sound is coming from first, and what it is second. This isn’t to say we can’t hear dynamics, but we hear PHASE changes better.
I’ve worked on many, many cables to arrive at better and better sounding cable independent from the “science”. Why? I wanted to back the science into the final forms that provided the best overall, sound quality. If the science is “there” and can be used to predominantly isolate WHY cables do well it should show up in the final measurements. And, it does. I’ve even sited third party web sites that match the requirements of better cable to the math. Yes, it is indeed “known” what to do to manage PHASE, DCR, cap and inductance. HOW is the tough task on the mat.
Cables with low inductance are low phase. Getting low inductance isn’t easy if we keep capacitance very low, too. Resistance has to suit the application as too much DCR on a speaker cable CAN make audible changes to the frequency response as signal drop across the cable and not the reactive load of the speaker.
ICONOCLAST tries to group the importance issue holistically as a “system” that is balanced. No variable is left behind. Everything is carefully considered. Yes, I can get low inductance with two flat copper plates but capacitance goes straight up to 500 or even more pF/foot! To me that isn’t a DESIGN. Globbing a wad of Ethernet wires into a “cable” isn’t a DESIGN.
“The ear is a TIME based device above all else.”
I would call the ear a combination of resonant-chamber amplitudes on absolute celia placement. The brain (not the ear) combines the celia-neural firings to derive time-based sensory.
“It isn’t very good at amplitude sensitivity”
Actually, the dynamic range of a young, healthy ear is astonishingly large, somewhere in the neighborhood of 150dB SPL at low freqs. At higher freqs, the ear compresses beyond around 120dB SPL. This is better than most microphones, and certainly far better than most speakers :-) Moreover, the ear is very sensitive to small changes in amplitude, as well. A trained listener can detect differences of less than 0.25dB.
I’ll stick with WHERE (time based) over the sound itself, as most important. You stay alive longer that way. ANY sound that startles you no matter the volume is vectored in PRONTO by your outer ear structure and brain. We are wired for location information first. I will grant you a TINY unidentified sound in a really quiet room where no sound is expected DOES use sensitivity to amplitude, but the sounds ID is second to WHERE it is coming from.
Its been awhile since college physiology class, so that’s all the more detail on that I’m good for.
Sure, the brain is the final leg in the process of hearing. Is you car fast or the engine and transmission? I think we all understand SOME system concepts make things quicker to talk about. We say cars are fast, but the brain of the car is the engine / transmission. The same looking car / person can have different engine and transmission / ears and brain.
On the issue of amplitude sensitivity yes, I can hear 0.5 dB shifts in balance easily in my speakers and that’s all the finer my XP-30 will allow so I agree smaller than that dB sensitivity s certainly real.
I certainly don’t want to make it out that being second means we are terrible amplitude devices. And, the ears system of structures, not the brain, provide what the brain processes.
Galen Gareis
In my experience, with respect to audio recording and reproduction systems, it is neither time nor amplitude, but timbre purity (signal linearity) that is the most important element. This assumes time (correct spatial placement) and amplitude are well-managed. Low-level digital conversion (ADC/DAC) are the biggest offenders here. Study a -90dBFS sine wave (quite audible) via any contemporary ADC or DAC. Horrifically bad.
I have measured subtle LRC differences in analog mic and line and speaker cables, variations which could cause perceived tonal shifts among cables. But our goal as audio designers should be the elimination of “cables” altogether, shortening and hard-coding the link between ultimate transducers (mic / speaker) whenever possible — most importantly the elimination of analog cables.
In college we had to be subjects to school of humanities classes and experiments. Tests were repeats of older tests to judge gauge R and R repeatability value and validity.
One was an interview for a job and you didn’t know this wasn’t the test. At a random time during the interview, through randomly hidden speakers throughout the room a LOUD burst of sound was played. WHAT the sound was was random as well as WHERE it came from. After you jumped out of your skin, the interviewer also acting surprised, asked you what happened. Most responses were “I don’t know but a loud sound came from over there!” “What was it again?” I was asked. I didn’t know, all I knew was WHERE it came from.
A follow-up test was done later, and used the exact same room and speaker, but this time we KNEW where it was and was told what the test was; can you identify short and sudden burst of sound. The same sudden sounds that surprised us earlier, but this time we were ready for them. Nearly everyone identified each sound. My initial test burst was a voice yelling, “BOO”. As easy as it was to identify it AFTER the first test, I had no clue what it WAS during the first test. Ninety percent also didn’t know WHAT the sound was on the first test, but only where it came from. We had to ID all the test sounds used across all the participants and the ones no one could identify were tossed out.
The ear/brain seems to be able to process PHASE, where the sound is, faster than AMPLITUDE, what the sound is, information. This is why I feel TIME based corrections are important. One test isn’t the final answer, but it is the “experience” that I have to make judgement…that science can later change.
Cable accounts for a SMALL portion of PHASE and impact the localization of sounds. We do need to remove non-linear systems but are pure digital cables with their D/A issues really less linear as a “system” than analog circuits?
We also need to still be judicious with the number. Rs is important, yes, but the INDUCTANCE value is more important than the Rs trace even though one does improves the other. We hear the PHASE improvements but less so the Rs flattening. BOTH sets of actual numbers are seemingly too small to hear based on dB’s (attenuation effects) and degrees phase (inductive effects). But, the ear is biased to TIME based errors over amplitude. We hear the exact same issues with speakers, by the way.
My prototype designs have proven to me the merits of low inductance and low capacitance, both. The ICONOCLAST speaker cable was originally a 0.125uH/foot design that was CHANGED to be 0.08 uH/foot as this value sounded so much better. The capacitance moved from 30 pF/foot to 45 pF/foot. Why? The laws of Mother Nature force your hand UNLESS a new electromagnetic structure can be devised. Using the same basic structure moves one up if you move the other down. Better machine manufacture kept capacitance well in check, and really improved the inductance.
A matrix of different machine settings were used to optimize the speaker cable design. For durability and safety reasons, we use solid dielectric in speaker cables. Yes, AIR would lower the capacitance assuming all dimensions being the same and with the SAME inductance. Inductance is purely distance, not dielectric, influenced. But, to get AIR safely in the design the DISTANCE wire-to-wire increases and impacts inductance. That’s not the best trade-off to make. Not to be overlooked, but there are forty-eight wires in the speaker cable and sixteen in the XLR! Every wire has to be the “same” wire. Herding cats comes to mind.
If this industry paid more attention to true science, a best in class structures could become “standard” for audio. ICONOCLAST isn’t the asymptotic right answer…yet but it is far closer and cheaper than most. Push the design limits to electromagnetic perfection one step at a time. I will leave those opponents of better cable that argues, “you can’t hear that” alone. My task is to measurable improve cable to be less “there” and match the science. We’ve made those improvements and the data shows it. I told a friend that you can only cheat the physics in your brain.
Enjoyed this series of articles. A question, will future series of articles by Belden cover how a cable maker measures their product to ensure their design and engineering has met expectation and has met the advertised claims. I would be interesting to know what measurement tools are used in this process.
We don’t have such a piece yet, but that’s a great idea. Thanks for reading, and for writing!
OK, I read the complete series and waited until the last to comment. I don’t dispute the science presented at all. I don’t doubt Galen is a top notch engineer at Belden, he would not have lasted there if he was not highly competent. Furthermore I don’t doubt for a second that his measurements are accurate and repeatable.
Here’s the rub:
No where in this series is a scientific attempt made to compare the Iconoclast cables with say Wall Mart cables. While there is plenty of classic cable performance theory presented, none of it is mathematically related to an average line level or speaker audio signal. Plenty of verbal talk about the evils of cables but no facts quantifying the damage these attributes have on an audio signal.
Again, this is an excellent dissertation on cable design relating to HiFi audio. Yet there is no evidence presented which proves the enhanced specifications of the Iconoclast cables makes any measurable audible difference and if so, how much. To be very clear, I am not saying the cables will not measure well. I am asking for measurements of an audio signal through a chain of these cables against commodity cables. For example, what is the difference in db at a particular frequency between test cables and Iconoclast?
This is a good but typical audiophile read. However if this is to pass engineering muster, much more quantified data and real world test results are needed.
While it is, indeed, the rub, we’ve worked very hard at presenting the science behind cables in general, and have included Galen’s notes on the trade-offs chosen for the Iconoclast series.
However: I’m not sure how we can go into the performance details of those cables vis-a-vis other brands (or even nameless spool cables) without turning this into marketing.
We have several more pieces coming on additional cable topics, and we’ll debate how or if we can present further performance details. Given our desire to be a neutral presenter of information, that could be tricky.
Yes you have presented the science behind cables very well. As an EE who has also specified millions of feet of your products in the broadcast / mastering industry I appreciate Belden quality.
But what I read here is another “there is skin effect at audio frequencies, that’s a Scientific fact”. OK, in strict engineering speak there is skin effect at 0.000001hz! But again in the real world, show me where skin effect is a problem in baseband analog audio system design? It’s not.
The same can be said for all the theories Galen has presented. Many are quite important at video, RF, high speed data. But baseband audio?
Paul has commented to the effect that Belden has a tight lease on Galen and this product line, blames it on lack of audiophile marketing experience. Well I think I know otherwise. Belden is being very careful with public presentation on this subject – as well they should. Belden sells to engineers and scientists, not Best Buy or audiophile magazines. If Belden has discovered some evidence of audio improvement with some new cable, show us. But show us in standard engineering language. You know how to do that and have done so for many, many, years. Seems strange it’s not being done for this product line – if it is even a product line.
The metrics to judge good audio cable isn’t new. The ability to MEASURABLY improve R, L C, Rs and phase and show the improvements is rare. There is no question improved phase response in cables is desirable, and that amplitude (simple attenuation) isn’t the major problem. I’ve used our products like 1313A to directly illustrate the changes to better design. Illustration isn’t a “sound”. There is nothing “typical” about the hard data ICONOCLAST meets. It is better or worse.
There is no magic “number” to describe what lower phase issues sound like with reduced inductance. The “sound” can’t be put into a number like MPG for a car. Like MPG is all a car should do.
We seem to have a set of users that think a measurement of ONE sort can define the cable’s sonic signature. Even ten measurements aren’t going to do it. No amount of adjectives can do that. Sooner or later you need to DRIVE the car, listen to the cable, DAC, speaker or T.Table.
The “evidence” that true and measurable improvements can be heard is not the point. The point is cables can indeed be made better and the values necessary for improvements have been here for awhile. Until you decide to listen to a device, I will argue there is NOTHING that will “prove” it sounds different till you hear it. Two traces that look different or are the same? So what. I could argue that either example traces sound the same (even if they don’t). Take two loudspeaker steady state frequency response traces that are FLAT. Do you REALLY believe they SOUND the same? Not a chance. There are ZERO amounts of data that can describe how a speaker works due to the non-linear variables involved, same as cable. Yes, we know what needs to be better, but the DESIGN is a superposition of the compromises involved.
Galen, again I am not questioning your test data. I am asking for measured data of an audio signal with and without your cables. And I want calibrated scales as I’m sure you can appreciate that request. Not some chart showing a half inch physical difference in print that is in reality 0.01db! In reading last issue of Copper it seems I am not thew only one asking for this data. Why won’t Belden supply it? I really don’t care if Iconoclast measures better electrically than your 1313A. I’m sure it does. But I want to know what those enhanced attributes do for my audio reproduction over 1313A in electrical terms using audio signals.
The audiophile industry is already knee deep with irrelevant science to impress the non-technical.
TIM distortion. Great! Any beat up old squarewave generator can make any feedback amplifier produce it. Now show me a sound in nature that can? Can’t happen in our 15psi atmosphere. Speed of sound won’t allow an acoustic risetime that fast – not even a nuclear hit. So what is the point of TIM? It can’t happen in real world circumstances.
Shunyata DTCM (sp?) Shows a power cord response to an RF pulse. OK, but we don’t use RF pulses for power distribution. We use 50/60hz sinewaves. So who cares if a power cord can deliver a 300amp pulse for a few nanoseconds? No power supply is going to ever request current that fast. Again more audiophile “science” that has no real world relevance.
We want some “magic” value to take the place of USING the cables? No you won’t get one, let me say that straight away. But, you sure as heck want each variable to be best in class to even begin to possibly sound better. You need to stick the paper work between your ears and LISTEN. If measurably better cable can’t be heard in your system or your ears then buy all means get the legacy products designed to be cheap to manufacture. That doesn’t mean 0.17uH/foot is the same as 0.08 uH/foot because you don’t hear it.
ICONOCLAST gives you more reasons to trust its design, even if you still need to audition the product. I made the cables for “me” not you. Comments were so strong to market them that that got us where we are now. This is not marketing, but a pure engineering driven project for my own use, initially.
Every cable test report is measured WITH connectivity, as this is how you use them! Precision R, L C meters are used to make measurements during developments. There is no lazy way out of making or selecting cable. Trade-off in design is made and auditions are still necessary with non-linear systems. When given the facts we want different facts. Belden has given you more than you ever will get elsewhere. We feel proof of design is a public property, always have. Those that want that “magic” fact won’t be happy.
Upcoming articles will follow through on the designs of RCA, XLR and speaker cable but again hear me on this point…none of it will stick a sonic signature in your head no matter the amount of facts presented. Measurement will define the adherence to true measure of compliance and those facts SHOULD superimpose to a better user experience.
My takeaway from this is that there is no such thing as the perfect cable. This, as well as other similar engineering issues concerned with high end audio, is a series of compromises designed to try and replicate, for some audiophiles, the live performance. Clearly, unless your listening room is the size of an auditorium, this will be impossible. For me it is about buying the best value equipment for your budget. That is why I laud PS Audio, and others such as Emotiva, for producing great sounding products at reasonable prices (Sprout and Stellar).
No one will turn down –30 dB RL coaxial cable (less reflected energy at RF) but we will turn down better measuring audio cable? As a RF user, I’d get as good as can be made and adjust the task to match my budget. I can argue -30dB RL coaxial cable is snake oil, assuming that is something that is measurable but somehow decided to be unimportant at some level. Who decides that level if it can be achieved?
Budgets can be a problem and yes, it is $$$ to make –30 dB coaxial cable and higher quality audio cables. We’ve taken strides to make the ETPC line affordable as costly as these cables are to make.
You can’t argue the measurement and the means to get them. ICONOCLAST meets the metrics for better performance. That’s a fact, a repeatable number. The argument on the sound is a fool’s errand we don’t do at Belden. We sell MEASUREMENT. We will tell you WHY that number is important. We will metric to OUR own products. We can’t tell you what you will hear any more than everyone hears a speaker the same way. We all hear different things. But, a number is a number to give you REASON to see if the improvements are heard…that is NOT saying the cable isn’t better, it is, by measurement. The cable never changes. Sound Design Creates Sound Performance.
OK Galen, when is Belden going to suggest professional sound system installers switch to Iconoclast? You have a huge market in mastering, broadcast, theatrical speaker wire. And many of these installers are advanced technicians if not contract EEs. Surely they will appreciate the superior performance of Iconoclast. Plus these projects can easily absorb the increased cost. When spending multi millions on a facility, a few thousand difference in AV wire costs are irrelevant. I know as I have managed many such budgets.
Belden through out the years has had no problem selling more advanced cables. Look at the transition from 8281 to 1694/5 and now to the 12ghz stuff for SDI video. How about the transition from 84/9450/51 to 1800 for AES? Also the substantial progress you have made with CAT cables. These product upgrades were highly praised by the industry. And that’s’ just in my niche industry that Belden services.
Why is Iconoclast such a mystery and shrouded in secrecy? You lament about the difficulties in scheduling a production run displacing standard catalog products. Why not build up a professional market for Iconoclast where you can justify millions of feet per run?
Great series of articles… However, visiting the website for these cables is less than enlightening… Are they available at all? In Canada? How much are they? etc. Awaiting further information.
We do have a pro AV product developed from ICONOCLAST XLR series introduced at the AES show in New York. This is a pro level high flex self healing air tube design product for studio and recording use that is better than our previous products, by measurements. There is more to studios than the cable. There is termination time and many other factors that enter in to it. ICONOCLAST is a home design product very different than the “most” of the pro’s want.
The data is in the graphs axis for all measurements. Trying to buy the cable strictly off the spec sheet won’t work. Why do you by 1313A for instance, our standard legacy product? The cable measures in arrears of ICONOCLAST yet you don’t seem to be upset by this, why? At what point do you randomly decide your cable is or isn’t good enough? Our job is to make better measurement to a standard scale (same axis for both cables). We’ve done that. Chopping the data into every imaginable format isn’t going to make legacy cable better, or ICONOCLAST worse.
When do you tell PS Audio to stop making his equipment measure better? Don’t tell me price, either. The best that can be done is seldom cheap. The manufacturing cycle isn’t set-up to manage the leading edge efficiently. The equipment isn’t there in volume. In time, and if two-channel audio is a viable business channel, it gets cheaper to manufacture.
Belden has been in business for over 105 years making money to stay in business with quality products that measure up. A small ultra high performance MEASURING cable of any sort is a tough sell when it displaces stuff that keeps the lights on. A small QTY to an isolated audience is fine. Too much and it takes away bottom line margins unless adjustments can be made to the manufacturing cycle. ICONOCLAST is about learning how to make better cables so that the studio XLR can be made from that exercise…to a potentially larger audience.
I’ve given the third party web site that nicely cover the MATH, not the design, behind all cable. The argument is that “nothing” by itself can be heard. That’s fine. We sell plus specs on many products, and in time better becomes the new standard. I don’t think anyone will complain ICONOCLAST isn’t better.
The ear does hear differences, and if you can’t hear it you get your money back…but it doesn’t make the cable measure worse when we refund your purchase.
For the Nth time Galen, I am not questioning the superior measurements of Iconoclast. What I and some others in your previous articles are asking is to correlate these superior measurements with improvements in the transmission of an audio signal using standard accepted engineering measurement criteria. And further understanding the magnitude of said improvement. A hundredth of a db may in fact be an improvement but hardly audible and therefore does not justify the cost of the upgrade. You well know as an EE that we can measure electrical audio far beyond human hearing ability. Level and phase changes are easily captured and recorded.
So just how much better are Iconoclast cables versus standard offering based on standard electrical measurments WITHIN AN AUDIO SIGNAL?
Here:
“Taking the audio band from 100 Hz to 20 KHz, we see a 6.75% change in overall impedance with Iconoclast, versus a 71.8% change for the 1313A cable.”
Now show me how that affects a 100-20khz sweep on said speaker system measured at the speaker terminals with 1313A and Iconoclast. You say Belden is all about measurements and these are both your products readily available to you.
You don’t LISTEN to that measurement no matter WHAT it shows, however. Your ear hears everything we can measure and know to be better, and what we can’t currently measure. No sooner than we have a lump sum measurement (what you propose) than people will want it torn apart to single point properties. Once we get to lump sum parameters, your ear is the best instrument there is. It doesn’t approximate anything, it doesn’t forget anything, it has no bias as to what point measurements are heard or not. Point measurements aren’t biased. They are better, or worse and repeatable. There is no amplifier, DAC or cable that can be the “final answer” to what you HEAR. You’ve gone past what measurements can tell you. How a car FEELS is an EXPERIENCE. The specs and design get you close, point by point. The superposition of all those points is the experience. I have no measurement for that. Why do we resist driving the car or using the cable?
I’m sorry but this is just more of the same old audiophile hogwash. “It can’t be measured”, “your ears aren’t good enough”, etc. Ears not biased? No but the brain sure is. How about a DBT? No, now we say that’s no good because you have to be in the right mood? Come on!
You are quick to point out there is no magic in your cable measurements only science. Yet when we ask for those measurements to be correlated to the intended application, transporting an audio signal, we then get magic and folklore.
You also seem to be saying your cables do no harm. That if the cable measurements are better, why not use them. Well you fail to mention the cost. I have heard Iconoclast cables can cost thousands? You might be able to fool a few audiophiles but to market this product you are going to have to do better than that.
I don’t think anyone is attempting to “fool” anyone here. I think all Galen is saying is that while individual attributes can be closely correlated to hard science, there is little agreement as to which combination of attributes will result in overall performance that will create a better, more realistic listening experience.
I think that’s pretty reasonable—and certainly based more in hard, measurable science than most designs.
I give Belden credit for utilizing their vast resources to even try to create cables with superior audio performance.
The glaring problem is nobody has tested the audio performance of these cables yet. The cables were apparently tested for standard properties, but those properties were never tested with/against an audio signal.
What you are trying to do here is to say none of that matters because we listened to them and they sound better. And what controls were done in the listening test for starters?
Galen wants to apply science only where it suits his agenda. Yes the cables measure better than others. But no scientific measurement was done to test how they perform electrically in the application they were designed for.
And I don’t think Belden is behind this as you imply. This seems to be Galens pet side project which he managed to get some corporate investment to further. But this is hardly a product line Belden is promoting.
Perhaps a little dose of kindness would get better answers. I know you’re frustrated with the answers (or lack of them) but no one’s trying to sell anyone on anything. Words like “hogwash” don’t really offer the same respect afforded to you – nor the kind and respectful comments you made earlier – comments I am impressed with and that have value. Thank you for asking them.
Let’s all take a deep breath.
Fact is, we don’t know how to measure all we can hear. The simple audio measurements available to us do not cover all there is to know and quantify the perception of sound. There’s plenty of examples of this in other fields where humans can register that which machines cannot. Over time and as equipment and science get better, that’s changing.
This is the first time I am aware of a major cable manufacturer and their qualified engineer taking the time and energy to try and shed some light on a tough and controversial subject.
That Belden does not have all the answers is obvious. That they/we cannot measure all we hear is equally obvious. Let’s work towards learning and understanding and perhaps, someday, some really bright engineer can figure out how to capture and assign metrics to those things we hear but cannot yet measure.
Perhaps it’s you. Perhaps it’s Galen. Perhaps no one gives enough of a shit to work on it. But, at least we’re giving an honest try to opening a few doors of knowledge.
Sorry Paul, but this is still going in circles. What I am hearing is that since we can’t measure everything we may hear, let’s not measure anything and just trust our ears.
To me this is an incomplete synopsis. When it comes to scientific measurements of how good the cables are stand alone, Galen presents plenty of science. But when it comes to quantifying that data with an audio signal, we say the results will be no good so lets not bother.
“Look how good the inductance spread is on Iconoclast” That must be better?” Ok it would seem so but why not measure it? You can’t say just because the inductance is more uniform, the cable performs audibly better. The effects of that tight inductance spread may not be significant with a real speaker and amplifier combination. And it could (most likely will be) different with different amplifiers and speakers but how much so. We can certainly measure that. Who knows, the result may very well support the assumption.
OK, hogwash is too harsh. But this report is still an unfair test and conclusion. Science was only applied where the results were favorable, that being the isolated cable attributes. When it comes to a dynamic test, we revert back to untested assumptions.
I actually agree with you. All of us want to find the answer. I actually have an idea, one that I’ve proposed to Galen to try. This might go a long way to proving there is a difference between two cables at audio frequencies. If we can show there’s a difference that would go a long way towards getting folks to take the time to perhaps look closer at the whys.
We’ll see.
The industry standards for all cables is R, L C and swept impedance. Now all of a sudden it’s “hogwash”? We measure “only” what suits us? No, we measure what the industry accepts. There is no accepted wide band “pulse” response for audio cables, nor a method to decide if this is better, or worse, than other products. THAT is hogwash. Belden requires ONLY industry accepted test methods that we use for ALL audio grade cables. The MATH and SCIENCE is PROVEN as to what attributes improve cables. Well, at least if you are honest with your customer.
We don’t test cables with signals they use? Really, so my music system doesn’t qualify for that? I’ve had too many EE’s that have used the cables tell me that if the way I designed the cables is hogwash, then they are washing the pig in fine fashion over their existing cables.
Price isn’t science. That’s just what it costs to make these cables break even. Sure, we all want them cents a foot but that not a reality. There is nothing wrong with not using cables with better ACCEPTED electricals, or a price too high for you. That does not change how they work based on the numbers provided.
Do you have an AES test standard for attribute superposition outside of Rs? If so, let me know about it. Making up tests as we go isn’t benchmarked to peer review standards, the tests I’ve conducted are.
You are twisting what I said around!
I never said standard cable tests are hogwash. What I said was taking those standard test numbers and claiming they improve audio performance without any real world measurements to back it up is not scientific. To further claim such a real world test would be unnecessary because we can’t measure what we hear is …..
If you want to claim your cables have less inductance spread, lower capacitance, what ever. That’s fine and I never doubted your claims in this area. But to say they improve audio performance based on your personal listening is not a scientific test. At the very least we would need ABX / DBX testing conducted under proper protocols.
You tested the cables on your music system? Great, show us the results in a scientific framework. That means charts and graphs. How it sounded is only your personal opinion.
As for price, of course that matters. If we do have a proven electrical advantage to using Iconoclast, that too has to be quantified and qualified. If said improvement is a tenth of a DB, does that justify the increased cost? In the audiophile market it often does because the customer does not understand the science and technology. They just know it’s “better”. But how much better?
Yes, I agree that the channel is really poor as Belden is a “huge” market model enterprise. We clearly don’t do too well direct to the consumer. But, a call direct will work. Bob Howard is the contact @ 1 850 516 5365. More detailed information is also available @ [email protected]
It isn’t a secret on purpose. It is as simple as show me how you get paid and I’ll show you what you do! Belden has allowed me to introduce the products to you at a minimal overhead as the cost to make them is so high. More cost isn’t making that equation prettier. I wish people had a better feel for the cost of large scale manufacturing so the limits of profile products is better understood.
If you want boutique type products and a real personal type contact, well this is it. Not that I want it to remain a secret. I want to get the price down ASAP and allow you all to enjoy better cables.
Be aware, upgrades to specific products like Ethernet and coaxial cables are enhancements to existing large volume processes. The ICONOCLAST are mostly new process from the ground up. I did steal the redesigned BONDED pair technology from the data side. There is scant little in common with RF cables, and as the ICONOCLAST gets better in the audio range, it gets decidedly worse at RF, which doesn’t surprise me in the least. The DESIGN needs dictate the processes. There was no marketing influencing the designs, they had to measure up.
There is no question that current measurements will not convert even the values we do measure to a “sound”.
We have to look at the result, and try to back it into the “known” even though, as EE’s, we think we PUSH all the results into the product. Mother nature has different plans at times and points that out with different results than we thought we pushed forward. A reminder that we don’t have as much push as we thought we did. Something is always pushing that we aren’t aware of. It can be a help or a hindrance in the product. It ALWAYS tells us we don’t know all of what we think we do, cable included.
“What I said was taking those standard test numbers and claiming they improve audio performance without any real world measurements to back it up is not scientific”
R, L, C and Rs ARE the real world measurements that define how electromagnetic waves move down a wire. That does back it up. Technically Rs is defined by R and L at specific frequencies leaving R, L and C.
Your request to “create” a test that has overriding validity (by whom?) and will define the performance over R, L, C and Rs is what is not yet scientific. Transmission line theory defines that those variables ARE the “secret”. Better fundamental variables means a better cable, there is no escaping it. Please bring me your evidence that this isn’t so. If you have an industry-accepted test that isn’t already determined by those variables, point it out, we’ll do it.
HOW you R, L, C and Rs is the tricky part. The concept of really good cable is easy to understand but really hard to do. Those variables won’t fall in your lap. Let’s make an assumption that we have a cable with no R, L and C and Rs is dead flat. What “test” would be necessary in your mind to support that this is a remarkable cable?
You keep falling back to how good your cables are. How well they measure using standard electrical measurements for cables.
I am not disputing that. I am sure your statements are quite accurate. YOUR SPEAKER CABLES ARE MUCH BETTER THAN HEAVY ZIP CORD!
You said your cables provide a ten fold improvement over typical speaker wire. The problem is that doesn’t automatically mean a ten fold improvement in audio performance. It could mean absolutely no detectable improvement. Or or could be ground breaking.
As strictly a cable engineer you are kind of saying that’s not your responsibility to measure or determine. OK, I can agree with that too. But somebody needs to do those tests.
1) You could do it all in simulation. You provide the LCR paramaters of the cables and I or someone would have to get the relevant data on the power amplifier as well as the speaker. Then we sim it. But getting all that data could be difficult.
2) We can simply take your cables and try them. I mean isn’t that the best test as the cables are ultimately designed to be listened to? Well yes, provided strict ABX/DBX controls are used. Otherwise placebo bias takes over and is especially troublesome with Iconoclast due to their cost.
3) Is a sort of in-between test which I am suggesting. We take a typical speaker and amplifier (I know, define “typical”), and run test sweeps through your cables measuring the results at the speaker. You could further do some acoustic testing as well.
#3 will give us numbers as to the magnitude of any changes the Iconoclast cables make on the audio signal operating within their intended application – speaker cables. Electrically and even acoustically if so measured. If those numbers are down in the mud meaning close to or below the accepted levels of human hearing thresholds, what is the point of using these better cables. Yes the cables are better. But does it matter?
Glimmie, I sent you a PM on the PS Audio forum.
This is disappointing to read. What you’re doing here (probably not intentionally) is setting up a number of excuses to wiggle out of the core question when we (if we) show a difference.
We see this same behavior in Washington.
If you actually want us to spend our time proving there is a measurable difference, a difference we hear and no to exist, then you’re going to have to accept what we give you. Of course it’ll include the scale. We are engineers, after all, and hardly charlatans. We don’t even sell this cable.
For now, the question is simple. Is there a difference in the audio band between cables or not? We answer that and the debate’s moved on. Now, if you wish to ask “is it audible” that’s something we’ve already confirmed to our own satisfaction. I know of no way to suggest what is audible to me or to you. Much depends on the system, the listener, and the music.
Let’s answer the one question and all agree we’ve made (or not made) progress when we do.
Deal?
OK, yes. Like I said many times here, Galen’s speaker cables are superior to zip cord when you look at the strict specifications. I’m not trying to wiggle out of anything. Asking for legitimate testing is hardly trying to bypass the truth.
If someone can show these cables produce an electrical different in application that meets the established threshold for audibility, then yes I will certainly accept it. Now if we want to argue that current science is wrong and the established hearing threshold is wrong, well then we are back to subjective evaluation.
For me, I accept what our scientists, doctors, and engineers document as human hearing threshold. I am not qualified to challenge their research in that area.
Accurate quotes are good, careful with the misquotes.
I never said ten times anything, or that L and C being stable with respect to frequency is “unique” to ICONOCLAST, or that impedance is changed by capacitance with respect to frequency. Let’s not confuse everybody.
– I report the raw numbers and comparisons can only be made to those said same tests. Ten time better “overall ” to anything is silly so if that’s editorialized in there, sorry.
– C and L with good quality dielectrics is stable to swept frequency. The VALUES you meet are unique to specific designs.
– Impedance changes as VP drop (from 55% at 20KHz to 5% at 20 Hz) as frequency is decreased. C and L don’t change.
– Yes, I fall back on better cables, that’s what we do, and we did that. Tomorrow, if all your current Belden cables measured as well and were affordable based on current research…would you not use them? That’s how development works.
– Second objective that you DON’T pay for unless you hear it, is improved sound. We sell measurements that SHOULD provide enhanced enjoyment in use.
-Third is to figure out why. A test that shows a difference isn’t why, though. A bad test that shows nothing still doesn’t change what I know to be true listening to them. We just try another approach.
So no weird stuff here. It’s all on the up and up. If you really can or can’t hear it, it better be able to reach that objective.
And, we do have a new Belden XLR P/N 2468 derived from ICONOCLAST for studio use. The innovation process is at work for you. Ask Duncan about the cable. He’ll be happy to give you an opinion. I can send you the tech report and sample assembly if you like.
I fully understand your frustration with cables, as there is way too much garbage out there. When the truth is presented, it is “hogwash”? Some secret new test must be devised to be “scientific” when R, L and C already are? ABX testing? That determines what you hear, and has not one shred of influence on the superior measure of the cable that’s already been scientifically proven with AES industry standard measures. Those tests ARE the real world measurement.
The underlying point, and one well taken, is that improvements past a specific point in your mind aren’t audible. Until you listen to the cable that’s certainly a point to be proven and another test that is fully supported by the underlying scientifically accepted variables won’t get that job done. Don’t be afraid to listen, that’s what they’re for.
I’m being patient with you but your hostile attacks on what is indeed scientific, and MEASURED, but is deemed unsuitable to the nature of the signal is an issue that is only in your court. In God we trust, all else bring data. Bring me your test that is outside of R, L and C.
Let’s all not forget, no matter how good the brochure specs are, we need to take a spin to really know how it works. There are so many things a test can’t represent. Glimmie’s wants and wishes are fully understood. Can we get the “brochure” information a closer representation of the products real world performance? Is there a new test that can do this?
Cable is a ten to the power challenge to lower L and C. It takes sophisticated designs to do it that are expensive. It is totally reasonable to ask, is that level of perfection heard or if it is, an advantage to the way I listen to music?
The numbers are irrefutably better. But is a top flight product matching your needs? You may even enjoy the cable but decide it is still outside your budget. Belden wants to drive down the cost of a good design to allow more users to make the decision more on the performance than price.
I feel that the DESIGN is most important over exotic materials in lesser designs. This is a significant advantage to you, the customer. We will look at how good design is a benefit in future articles.
For a layperson, Galen’s exposition and discussion have been wonderfully enlightening. I just wanted to say thank you.
What I don’t understand is why some audiophiles become so exercised when someone tries something new or experimental.
The discussion started out (in Part I) by pointing out how sensitive hearing is to the factor of timing, as opposed to other factors. Galen gives us the technical detail on some of the issues involved in improving that factor. What’s to argue with? Yet Glimmie insists and insists and insists on faulting Galen for not doing what Galen was never trying to do, namely prove scientifically that everyone can hear this.
If Glimmie wants to know whether Galen’s focus on improving the timing factor makes a meaningful difference, Glimmie needs to audition the cables for himself/herself. Until then, he/she has no [valid] opinion. He/she can not validly argue, in the absence of any experience with these cables, that Galen’s engineering MIGHT not make a difference and that Galen has NOT proved through some scientific test that it does make a difference. Given the number of issues affecting timing, not to mention all the other factors in play, it’s obvious that some people may hear a meaningful difference/improvement, and others may not. Just as some people can see all the colors and others can not. It’s a matter of the doors of perception for each individual. Can we still accept in this country that it’s OK for people to be different in real ways and to glory in those differences?
So to reiterate a question that’s asked in this string, where can an audiophile find Iconoclast products for audition and sale?
[email protected]
or
[email protected]
When you click on these e-mail addresses, you get a picture of blue sky and are asked to set up a new account. I guess this has something to do with the cloud.
I used the Bob Howard address directly on an e-mail and will presumably hear back from someone. I have to laugh about how hard it is to find out anything about a product that Belden is presumably developing in part–at least ultimately–for sale.
I sincerely hope that the sales and marketing team at Belden will finish a consumer friendly website that has better functionality. Some simple direct links to information and the ability to either order directly or be connected to a distributor would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for the kind words! Use either of the emails Galen has provided below for questions regarding product availability.
I have to ask the tough question about existing Beldin cables for audio: Are existing Beldin cables compromised for audio performance? I would assume that’s the case, or there would be no need for another line. There are many sellers (ex. Blue Jeans Cable & Benchmark Media) that publish articles stating the Beldin Cable performance is at the limits of human hearing. I have tried several and find them good performing cables, but really only average. They are great for home theater, but not so much for audio.
I’m asking as an educational thing, not to be attacking in any way. There is a lot of conflicting info.
Galen is in Mexico for the week and I’m not sure if he is checking up on his email. I’m sure he’ll answer you sooner or later, Reed. Feel free to PM me on the PS Audio forum if I can be of help.
Reed
No, they are not compromised but made to meet the 95 percentile performance to design cost. This is done on purpose as we need to manage the highest percentage of systems out there to be the best bang for the buck. Xmas they are.
The electrical values are good, but not state of the art relative to what our processes can do. Iconoclast pushes that to the limits. Better is better.
Does,or can, the faster car prove to be a benefit on the roads you own? My ears and system say yes, they can. But, that last 5%, and we can never get it all, is expensive. Belden is working on making those real gains a true value in the above 95% world of performance.
The more we understand the processes, the better the price. This is a work in “process” literally.
The series 2 interconnects exceed the series 1 and we intend to hold it reduce costs if we can, for example.
Galen Gareis
Sheesh. Quite the body of comments in the last several articles. A recurring theme that I keep seeing is distilled down to two fundamental, core ideologies: 1) the objectivists who simultaneously posit that we can measure “everything” (that is important) and that what we cannot currently measure (or even know to attempt to measure) is simply not important and irrelevant to the issue of audio fidelity in a cable…….and 2) those who are also advocate scientifically objective measurements but simply admit that the body of knowledge in the area of cables and audio is STILL GROWING.
I have many friends who are practicing structural engineers (and I am a professional audio/video engineer by day). All of them have told horror stories about other engineers [always the other ones ;) ] who thought they had considered all variables, but hadn’t. I’ll spare you the stories of structural compromise, massive repair projects, and other horrors.
I see far more danger in attempting to convince somebody that there is nothing left to know than in permitting scientific exploration into a field of study. How many times has scientific discovery been PREceeded by simple observation?
Bottom line, as Leebs and Paul have said, NOBODY is forcing anybody to buy these cables. And, further, to accuse Belden to be guilty of shoddy science (out of all the audiophoolery gummick-driven companies that have existed) is painfully ironic.
To assert that science has been fully exhausted in the area of audio signals moving through cables is the epitome of hubris….and is essentially guaranteed to be wrong as time (and science) march onward.
Hell, we can’t even fake a Stradivarius yet.
So, I think it best if we all take a step back and be willing to admit what we don’t know. It seems only a portion of us struggle with that….and it’s not the engineers at Belden.
Hear, hear! One (maybe) last comment from me:
My go-to Einstein quote regarding all things exploratory, human hubris, and so on:
“As a sphere of light expands, so too expands the sphere of darkness surrounding it.”
In other words: the more you know, the more you don’t know. And if you’re lucky, you know you don’t know it.
Y’know? ;->
*The cup goes clink for the toast*
That’s so true! So much of failure analysis that my buddies perform in breathtakingly expensive computer models is to attempt to know what we cannot calculate or account for. This informs design margins for safety, strength, wind loading, etc.
It is only in audio that I see the disguised (but, yet, still obvious chess strategy of) “everything that can be known is ALREADY KNOWN” philosophy enter into the debate. One of those structural engineers is my also my buddy and neighbor and is getting into audio slowly. Upon attempting to explain this style of thinking regarding audio research and some of the virtual vitriol it triggers caused him to use the phrase “mental gymnastics” more than once as he scratched his head. He couldn’t comprehend why scientific research and informed experimentation was so frowned upon.
When I meet someone who always has all the answers I think of my favorite quote about humility,
“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” -Isaac Newton
I have read all of these articles and comments with interest. Thanks for providing a forum for these types of articles and for reader input. I am left with two questions, the second of which I believe is absolutely critical to any kind of meaningful discussion about the “sound” of cables vs measurements.
1) As Galen mentions, getting that last 5% of measured performance is expensive, however what is the relevance to the length of the cable that we are using? I can understand that if we are using long runs of cable, e.g., 20 feet or more, that this is more critical than if we are using runs of only 8 feet. Do we really need to spend that extra money for short cable lengths?
2) I have never seen any kind of measurement of typical cable parameters for exotic, ultra expensive cables. How can we even begin to correlate measurements with perceived sound quality without knowing how these cables measure? There is nothing wrong with liking what you like and there is nothing wrong with people spending their own money on what they want. But if we are really trying to understand the “why” of something, things must be compared using the exact same criteria, measure for measure, otherwise any true comparison is meaningless.
This is almost silly – not to put words into Galen’s mouth, but what I’m seeing is:
Belden (Galen) says – I believe X, Y, and Z are important measurements to making a great cable for music reproduction, here are my theories, the math, and the measurements and it’s all reproducible – SCIENCE! I’ve listened to them and they work, and you can too with the no questions return! No fluff, marketing, or chrome plated, carbon fiber doodads, just here is what we believe, here is the proof that we’ve made the cabling to what we believe is good – and go try it out!
I also read that as – it’s out of scope (and probably R&D budget) for us to provide metrics that this makes a difference at the end of the chain, in your room. Use *your* ears! Did I mention the easy return?
Reading further, and the comments proving this – even if Belden did put a modest budget towards putting numbers to sound, I’m betting every method to do so would be torn to shreds, pointed at as non-industry standards, subjective, or just flat out not what modern science and doctors believe we can hear.
That “everything that can be known is known” attitude is so very myopic. There was a point in time when all science and doctors believed women suffered from “female hysteria” and the only cure was to go to a doctor to get masturbated – hence the vibrator was invented because doctors got tired of this (true story, look it up!). Science and technology progresses – and while the typical 20hz to 20Khz and all that is current science, I have to ask – how much R&D and funding has really gone into the minutiae of what’s possible with our senses? What study is there that has quantified the specifications in music reproduction that makes your foot tap, or to have an emotional response to a piece of music? As Paul said in his post, what is beauty and how do you quantify it? It was only a few decades ago that science and doctors said the deaf would remain deaf, and yet today we have implants that give children hearing – complete science fiction when we were children. My own hearing tests show my 45+ year old ears are average at best, yet I’ve done gear beta testing, and my input has been sought out by respected people in both music recording and reproduction. There is definitely more there than what current science says – so if the metrics go outside of what is *currently* believed, that is not an “out” or call of bullshit you can get away with. If that doesn’t work for you, then just plug the damn things in and listen for yourself! (insert plug for no hassle return here)
I’m a skeptic myself – I grew up surrounded by big brains who made me prove everything. Bits are BITS right? All digital audio cables are the same, right? If a power supply meets the design needs plus a little extra for wiggle room (“designed correctly”) it doesn’t have any effect on the sound, right? These same people never took the time to look up from their slide rules to give a listen. I’ve reached out to Belden for more info and look forward to trying out some cables myself. I’ll even setup an ABX at a friends house in his heavily treated dedicated listening room. I’ll see for myself thank you. ;)
Maybe if you guys aren’t happy with the lack of metrics at the end of the chain – come up with your own testing methods and run it past the other big brains, then perform them yourself. Then if/when you find you can hear a difference even though current science says it’s beyond normal human hearing – you can then come up with your own dissertation including new measurements and metrics to back it all up.
But that’s work, right? It’s easier to just write it off as being un-possible (lulz)