The Intellectual People Podcast - Galen Gareis (Former Belden Wire Designer)

audition_audio starts with a wrong assumption in regard to me once again, and develops as string of baseless conjectures.

I have for 14 years regularly conducted reviews of cables, and of my own accord, not for fulfillment of requests of the magazine, issued interviews with cable designers to learn as much as I can about cable design. The reviews are typically technical. I can produce the Interviews, if you wish. At one time Constantine Soo, Publisher was shocked to learn I had issued a technical Interview with almost all reviews I conduct, never published, and he discussed the possibility of publishing them. Seeing as how I have corrected audition_audio’s baseless insinuations prior, and he/she keeps producing them, I am stating publicly that I have every one of these interviews to prove that I have delved into cable manufacturing more than average.

In the case of Iconoclast, perhaps audition_audio is unaware that a particular aspect of Galen’s intent in making cables is to make design information available to all, thus lengthy technical videos are on youtube for all to see. Go look at them and tell me I’m wrong about my statements about the depth of design knowledge. I watched some of those videos. Perhaps some people here are threatened by the information about the company and the cables. Anyone can watch the videos and see for themselves the depth of expertise.

I am being mischaracterized once again by audition_audio as though my interests are questionable. My intent on contributing my initial post about Galen and Iconoclast was because, 1. It may seem obvious to most that this IS a thread about Iconoclast, and 2. I have what I feel is an important article to share with the community. My intent was to call attention to my writing, which in the article addresses the old objectivist/subjectivist debate regarding cabling. The post was an ad for my writing, not the cables. The discussion about Iconoclast and Galen were to substantiate that this would be a serious look at cable design in an obvious article about how cables sound. audition_audio had no clue about that, but instead of asking questions, he/she jumps to conclusions and piles on.

I requested previously that audio_audition kindly refrain from attempting to diminish my reputation by making insinuations, but he/she does not refrain. I have corrected him/her publicly repeatedly, but it persists. It would be nice if audition_audio would learn to ask questions instead of letting imagination run wild. :(

Why am I not discussing with audition_audio? Because I’m not inclined to talk with people whom I have corrected, and still attempt to damage my reputation.

This entire debate is a living proof of what I state at the beginning of these thread ---- the position of Galen is a lose / lose proposition.

The "objectivists" hate cable. They believe they do nothing, just as most of the things audio.

They basically have the following attitude:

1) Cable manufacturers that do not mention anything on technical aspects of their building process: snake oil. Hate.

2) Cable manufacturers who explain all technical aspects, and provide measurements: hate even more. Big time snake oil. Why? Because it rattles their own theory and the foundation of their beliefs.

This is why this is all lose / lose. No matter what technical explanation one provides, objectivists will never be happy. They will always say things like: beyond audible effects, measurements are done wrong, no impact on sound, blah, blah, blah....

No Doug your article is an attempt to draw attention to both your writing and the cables. An attempt to sell both. I am done and I will try to refrain from commenting in the future because you obviously dont see the problem and never will.

Some very interesting comments for sure!  

Guys, I think maybe the point here is missed...Galen, knew cables sounded different and went about trying to "measure" why, but more importantly challenge himself to design a cable that both measured well and sounded great.  To his credit he states that the better copper wire (Ultra Pure OFC) sounds better but can't be measured...even though the basic measurements are the same - got it? An engineer admitting to audiophiles what we have been saying - "I don't care about measurement, it sounds better!" Many engineers would never admit this- ...Lot's of variables go into design (not just resistance, capacitance and inductance) and the variables are interdependent...i.e. change one and the others change. So which ones are most important? If you read his papers and watch the video I think he would suggest TIME. Then it seems he challenged himself to design a cable by measurement and then see if the design parameters resulted in a good sounding cable by listening...so, he used measurements and his ears. And sent his cables to a lot of audiophiles for listening tests...I really can't fault him for his approach. Why don't you just audition them like every other cable you are interested in? See if you like them? 

I wouldn't fault Doug for listening and posting his listening results. He liked them - compared to other very well respected expensive cables. Just because he listed the manufacturers design goals - which btw, MANY cable reviews I read state some, if not all design goals and approaches, doesn't diminish what he heard when he tested the cables on multiple systems... I appreciate when reviewers write their opinions as it broadens my choices and thinking when frankly, I can't begin to test as many things as dozens of various reviewers can.