The Inspiration Behind Galileo by Ted Denney
The idea for Galileo came to me shortly after beginning research on Electromagnetic Cell technology that would later become the TESLA PowerCell. At the time I envisioned the PowerCell’s internal EM Cell as a means to condition signal, not merely AC. You see, I’ve never viewed “AC” as merely 120 volts (or 230 volts) of electricity traveling at a constant frequency. I have always thought of Alternating Current as signal, and as components (CD players, pre-amps, amplifiers, speakers, etc) as sine wave converters transforming the original sine wave (AC) into a more complex sine wave (music). It is my experience that the state of the original signal (in this case AC) has a direct effect on the final signal (music). In a way, I have always viewed AC as a system’s true front-end, as this is the original signal which is later converted by our various components into complex signals, sampled against what others assume to be a system’s front end (CD player, turntable, etc). This conversion occurs in every component that makes up your system, as the original signal (AC) enters a component through its power cord, gets converted to a more complex signal amplified from a secondary source signal (CD, phono, etc.) This process of sine wave conversion is handed down the line from one component to the next through your system’s cables, until the signal is finally converted to mechanical energy through your system’s speakers.
Electric field and electrons rendered as particles
What do I mean when I say “signal”? To some, signal is no more then what can be seen and measured on an oscilloscope or other test instrument. At Synergistic Research, we pay close attention to what can be measured, knowing that if a problem is detected it must then be corrected, or distortion may occur in your system. But what we can measure and what we hear with our ears are light years apart. To me, such measurements (while useful), are little more then a starting point, much like using an expensive backyard telescope can only serve as a starting point where discovering the mysteries of the universe are concerned. Sure, you can see moons orbiting planets in our solar system, and you can even see distant constellations and celestial bodies, but you can’t see planets orbiting distant stars, and you certainly cannot see moons orbiting those planets with your backyard telescope. The problem is simple: such observations lack resolution and suffer from distortion. The next logical step is to place telescopes outside of Earth’s atmosphere, as with the Hubble Space Telescope. Now we are able to see phenomenon in space that would be impossible to detect on Earth, and yet, we are still seeing only a small fraction of what is in space. For example, we know (actually most assumed as we had never seen orbiting planets around distant stars until the invention of Hubble) that stars have orbiting planets, and that many of these planets have orbiting moons. The point is, at any given time in history, we know far more then we can prove through the then current state of science. If you doubt me, try reading an old scientific journal or encyclopedia; you’ll find science to be evolutionary, and certainly not fixed.
Oscilloscope rendering of signal; a gross simplification of what actually constitutes “signal”
So how does all this relate to signal? Simple: when you look at signal through an oscilloscope, you are discovering no more of its true nature than can be learned about the true nature of the universe using a backyard telescope. Of course, more advanced measurements exist, but they are no more advanced when unraveling the true nature of signal than can be learned of the true nature of the universe from the Hubble Space Telescope. Trust me, we have far more to learn. How do I think of signal? Again, imagine you are in your backyard looking into space through a powerful telescope. Are you going to see distant galaxies? perhaps under the right conditions and with a telescope of sufficient resolution. But are you going to see planets orbiting around the stars that make up your galaxy? Are you going to see planets orbiting each star? Will you be able to see solar (star) systems that make up your galaxy, as you do when you turn your telescope on our own solar system? The answer is no, no you will not. Would it then be reasonable to assume only our sun has orbiting planets, and that these planets for the most part are the only planets in the universe that have orbiting satellites or moons simply due to the limitations of our test instrument (in this case a back yard telescope)? Perhaps if you are not very smart. Is it likewise correct to assume that all there is to know about signal can be represented and explained through known objective measurements when our experience tells us we can hear so much more? Again the answer is “only if you are not very smart.”
The Geocentric Universe: when science fails to think outside the box, progress is slow in coming
When I think of signal, I first think of what I see on an oscilloscope or spectrum analyzer. I look for known problems and design technologies to reduce measurable distortion. But then I go deeper, as if I had a Hubble Space Telescope. I think of what it is that makes up signal- electrons. Electrons too small to see individually on an oscilloscope, only their combined motion can be represented; just as distant galaxies look solid when viewed through a backyard telescope. And just as distant galaxies are made up of billions of stars with trillions of planets and trillions upon trillions of moons orbiting these planets all having an effect on each other, so too is “signal” made up of trillions of subatomic particles (electrons) traveling through billions of molecules, made up of trillions of atoms, all of which influence the collective state or behavior of the electrons that make up signal. It is the combined effect of perhaps an infinite number of variables at the atomic and sub-atomic level that determine the quality and nature of what we as humans ultimately perceive as music from our audio systems.
So when I think of signal, I think of the electrons that make up signal in a state of constant flux, influenced by a chaotic sub-atomic world. Think stray electromagnetic fields, as when an interconnect passes over a power cord, or when a circuit passes electrons along a circuit trace too close to a transformer, or when speaker cables are laid on a floor, or when electrons pass through different elements; conductors like copper, tin, silver, gold. All this and more affect the electrons that make up signal, and this in turn has an effect on the final sound our stereo’s produce. It is the combined influence of literally thousands, perhaps an infinite number of variables (few of which are partially, let alone fully, understood) that color and form the final “sound” we hear. As a cable designer, it is my job to isolate and control as many of these variables as I can, to get closer to the essence of music. Over the years, I have learned to combine different conductor and dielectric materials for more natural sound. I later discovered the effect DC has when placed in close proximity to signal or when used to supercharge the shield of a cable. This technology evolved though four generations of Active Shielding, until I envisioned the Electromagnetic Cell (which utilizes differential electromagnetic fields) as a means to calm and stabilize electrons. I know how effective my technology is, not only from what can be measured, but from our combined senses when used to subjectively analyze the final outcome. Unlike conventional filter methods that result in objective and subjective compression of information, my EM Cell (as found in the TESLA PowerCell, and now Galileo cable cells) suppresses distortion as it conveys a greater sense of emotion & space (soundstage), and a more three dimensional and vibrant portrayal of video and audio information. This seems to suggest that the EM Cell is having a quantum effect on the very building blocks of signal- electrons, as the final result is only partially explained through known measurements.
When we set out to develop the Galileo Series, I first envisioned a no-holds-barred research program; one that would not be hindered by conventional or practical constraints, not only from a research and manufacturing standpoint, but from an intellectual stand point as well. Basically, I set out to discover knowledge that could lead to new ways of building cables combined with EM Cells. I wanted to shatter conventional wisdom regarding what is possible from recorded music playback. I wanted to build the world’s undisputed heavy weight cable champion, as a culmination of my life’s work at Synergistic Research, and as a statement of what can still be developed and manufactured right here in the United States of America, at a time when American engineering and manufacturing are held in doubt. The focus of the Galileo Research Program was two fold. First, we set out to develop the world’s best sounding audio cables, and to do so by a margin that is indisputable. At the same time, we focused on ways to engineer a cable system that would defy obsolescence by building a cable whose sonic balance can be changed when components in a system are changed through the use of different conductor materials, or when connections go from XLR to RCA, or from full range speakers to bi-wire (and even tri-wire); all from one set of cables. In short, we set out to build a cable system the likes of which has never been conceived, let alone achieved.
Galileo System Speaker Cable Elevators and Strings