It's been a while since this thread had a bump, so thanks, celander!
Despite my lack of clarity in those two posts, I corrected them with a much more brief, correct discussion of the system chain, and I wish to enthuse about the stunning results obtained by using Schroeder Method on the AES/EBU output of the Musical Fidelity transport directly into the Exogal Comet DAC.
One of the curiosities of this comparison between the Audio Sensibility double XLR cable used as AES/EBU and the assembled Clarity Cable pair with Audio Sensibility Y cables is that the sound quality changed rather dramatically between these two. The Exogal Comet is supposed to be signal agnostic as it literally constructs its own waveform, so theoretically if any DAC should have produced an identical result when merely switching cables it would be the Comet. But, that is far from what happened. Far from thinking the Comet did something in error, I think the Comet is the most correct DAC yet to handle the double AES/EBU. I had done this connection with other DACS, but never obtained such a stunning result. It seems the enhanced connection is leveraged by the Comet to create a stellar result. Theoretically with the Comet that shouldn't happen, but it has.
I wonder if this is evidence of a signal/waveform change, confirmed by the Comet's rendering it differently between the two cables. In the past I have found that essentially the Comet did nullify format differences with digital sources. So, how to explain the substantial difference in this case with all variables identical except the particular double AES/EBU cable being used? That is most unexpected, but I am grateful for it. This calls for further exploration.
But, for now, I'm going to enthuse in the stunning sound quality! The MF M1 CDT transport, which I believe was discontinued, in this configuration with the Exogal Comet DAC and Exogal Ion PowerDAC with HyperDrive upgrade (article coming soon at Dagogo.com) handly outperforms all the disc spinners I ever reviewed, including a few $10K players. But, not having those on hand to assess, who is to say they would not be improved dramatically as well?
Anyone else ventured a try with Schroeder Method interconnects?
|
Maxima95 in answer to your first question, yes.
I have moved a lot of gear/systems in order to use too short cables for comparison. :)
|
budburma, congratulations on your success! You have a lot more fun to come. Many permutations and discoveries await you if you desire to explore further. I simply cannot go back to single IC for any appreciable time, as it is paltry. What was considered by the industry to be very good sound (single IC) is now mediocre, imo.
|
Markhh2, in answer to your first question, yes. I think that sort of result would be typical of Schroeder Method ICs.
You will want to read my just published Audio Blast regarding the HyperDrive upgrade for EXOGAL Ion at Dagogo.com
There is a LOT more where the Comet came from. Much more than you think possible.
|
flat4, nice to see someone else venturing out to try Schroeder Method.
Thank you for trusting my guidance, and kudos on the great result! :)
|
flat4, out of curiosity, what speakers are you running?
|
flat4, it's a lot of fun, isn't it? :) Not quite as heart pounding as free solo of El Cap, but getting there.
|
Flat4, I enjoy tuning rigs with power cords. I can do so precisely by selecting particular ones.
I haven't tried the Double Double yet. I plan on it. :) A lot happening.
|
budburma, that is a most lovely description of the benefits of Schroeder Method; thank you! :) I am elated that people are benefitting from the Method. You are testimony to the fact that it does not require an outlandish system, nor expensive cabling to obtain the benefit. (That being said, I have found correlation between the quality of the IC used in doubling and the quality of the end result, as would be expected.)
What's really shocking about the Method is that for decades everyone has been captive to a method that is simply impoverished. Single IC imo is pretty poor, now that it becomes clear that there is a vastly superior alternative. The difference is anything but subtle, and shows how critical cabling is for systems. I think this would be the ultimate convincing proof of the importance of cables, if hobbyists would bother to try it. That is especially so since theorists disdain it, as though nothing good could come out of it. That makes the Schroeder Method all the sweeter as a victory for obtaining superior sound. :)
I also have shown quite convincingly that the notion of certain supposedly superior designs in components which are thought to be insensitive to cables is erroneous. Repeatedly we have digital fans declaring that products like the Benchmark DACs, etc. are not influenced much/at all by cables. That has not been my experience. Even the Exogal Comet, which is supposed to be completely immune to such things because the proprietary signal processing makes a new waveform is very influenced by the ICs. From the source I swap between the Audio Sensibility Schroeder Method ICs and the double ICs I have built with the Audio Sensibility Y Cables and the Clarity Cable Organic ICs - and the difference is obvious, like changing the dimming settings on lights in the room.
BTW, Blessed Father's Day!
|
Occasionally I am contacted via the message system regarding someone wishing to try Schroeder Method, and they ask about a particular assemblage of gear, whether it will be safe to try. My answer continues to be review the original article (Audio Blast: Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement at Dagogo.com), the threads here in regard to it, and contact your manufacturer to inquire about whether it is safe.
To date I have not heard of any incidents with incompatibility or damage to gear. My best information tells me that this is patently safe, as it would merely half the impedance and double capacitance. The admonition is that this should not be used with very long ICs as it could be a problem for some preamps to drive. I have been told my more than one manufacturer that an IC of about 1m would not present any problem. I typically double up 2m ICs and have used two instances in systems regularly (i.e. between source and integrated DAC, and between integrated DAC and amp(s). I have heard concern regarding use of the Schroeder Method when using an NOS DAC (output driven from a chip) or a Class D amplifier. However, I know that TEO Audio has used a Red Dragon class D amp successfully. I would like to try it with an inexpensive class D sometime.
The warnings have largely been theoretical, however, manufacturers have a right to state what would or would not void a warranty.
Most gear seems perfectly content with Schroeder Method. I have used Belles, Benchmark, Exogal, First Watt, COS, Redgum Audio, Eastern Electric components all successfully. They all have sounded far superior using Schroeder Method. I am also using another well known amplifier, and a different manufacturer’s preamplifier, currently with Schroeder Method successfully (but they are under review and I do not wish to disclose them at this time). I regularly use Schroeder Method for both RCA and XLR, and both work equally well with it.
The body of information seems to be growing that the doubling of ICs is benign to most gear. Every instance that is tried is helpful information to learn about it. I imagine there could be some bizarre combination of gear that might be incompatible, so the warning stands. However, so far, all systems I am aware of that it has been tried have been without harm.
|
As they say YMMV.
Just heard from a guy with Chord gear who tried Schroeder Method and is VERY happy. |
Very nice to see such success with Schroeder Method. When it takes out high priced ICs maybe some others will sit up and take notice. Doesn't surprise me as I've said the performance is a radical improvement. :) |
piouser, congratulations on the success! I think you are the first to comment on the use of Schroeder Method for surround application. I anticipate that it would be as well received/regarded as with stereo. I would guess that the impact for your multimedia experience is quite positive. Thank you for your feedback! :)
Out of curiosity, would you like to share the primary elements of the system in use with Schroeder Method in surround? |
piouser, nice setup! Salk makes a very fine speaker; nice taste in speakers! I reviewed Salk several years ago; nice stuff.
|
piouser, thank you for the additional information. Interesting that you found the SS to have a greater impact. That is the first time I have seen a distinction made between SS and Tube in regard to the degree of change with Schroeder Method. It will be interesting to see whether others have similar or different results in that regard.
|
Tim, whatever you do, DO NOT COMBINE EVEN AND ODD NUMBERED PRODUCTS! ;)
Just kidding; there are people here who have only done homogenous sets and those who have done mixed sets, as well as mixing brands. The results seem to be uniformly good either way. As regards the run of the two cables, some twist them, some do not. I have tried the Clarity Cable Organic IC with one twist and tried them without the twist, and the difference did not pass my Law of Efficacy. In that case I discerned no difference between twisting them together and not.
Frankly, imo doing the Schroeder Method typically raises the performance, even with moderately priced cables, beyond the best single IC the company can offer. |
toolbox 149, your post is greatly appreciated, because it's another sincere, unbiased assessment of the profound influence of Schroeder Method. You bring up a good point. Skeptics often default to an objection that seems logical, even though it's wrong. When I was first trying double ICs one of the first thoughts I had was, "Will the poor quality connection of a splitter or Y-cable destroy any advantage in doubling the wires?" I know how splitters and Y-cables influence the sound, as I have used them a lot. I typically will avoid them whenever possible. However, in judicious use they can vastly improve a system holistically.
I was hopeful that the doubling of the cables benefit would vastly outweigh the "drag" on the results due to splitters/Y-cables. I was right. The difference is profoundly superior to a single cable, despite the less than perfect connection. Obviously, this is not ideal. I have had some responses to Schroeder Method condemning it because I used splitters initially. This is not terribly astute. I was looking for proof of concept on the cheap rather than pay for double cables to be made. In addition, splitters and Y-cables allow for recombination of cables, a big bonus when putting it on trial. Overall, imo starting with the marginal cost of splitters or Y-cables as opposed to sourcing a double IC is a more sensible way to proceed if you demand proof of concept and are skeptical. I understand the notion that people don't want to pay money for something about which they are unsure. This is about as cheap as it comes to try an unorthodox method.
At this point I don't know what the limits might be for sets of double ICs, perhaps no limit. There is still much experimentation being done. Some have tried a triple IC, and I'm told it's marvelous. Lot's of fun for those who, having judged the "do at your own risk" nature of it, and have tried it! To date I know of no negative outcome. It's very good that people with alternative setups are also seeing the benefit immediately. |
Tim, I am elated for you! I think you will realize a nice boost from the use of Y cables vs. The splitters, and additional improvement with higher grade wire in Y cables.
I concur that schoeder Method is a superior upgrade to most other changes. :)
|
Another gorgeous setup using EE Minimax DAC Supreme direct to Gold Note PA-1175 Amp(s). The Schroeder Method maximizes the benefit of a shortened signal path.
BTW, a word of caution, this is a setup using a dedicated DAC direct to amp, which is NOT recommended, obviously, unless software attenuation can be used. It is not safe to run a dedicated DAC without volume control into an amp. It must either be an integrated DAC with volume control, or some other combination of attenuation, not signal unattenuated into amp.
In my case I am using Roon's volume control feature. When I wish I can go into the Settings for Roon on the SONORE Signature Rendu systemOptique and change the volume control to "fixed" for use only when I have an integrated DAC, or a preamp. Wonderful flexibility!
I will be getting the latest V6 opamps from Burson to try out. That should really juice the performance of the EE Minimax DAC Supreme.
|
The only class D occurrence with Schroeder Method that I know about to date is TEO Audio successfully using it with the Red Dragon S500, I believe. If I had a reasonably priced Class D on hand I would try it myself.
|
grannyring, that is very helpful, valuable information! I had not been getting much feedback on class D applications. This is very encouraging!
aolmrd1241, one of the reasons I have been posting "do at your own risk" is because guidance I received from industry members and design theorists varied, some saying there would be absolutely zero chance of a problem, and others concerned about possible oscillations with class D amps. I also had one maker of a NOS DAC who had concern regarding use of the Schroeder Method. His concern was the output from the DAC chip versus preamplifier. For these reasons I am taking a cautious approach rather than blithely telling everyone to try it.
Based on grannyring's comment It seems there are more people experimenting with Schroeder Method than are discussing here. It would be interesting to hear which class D amps are being used. Would anyone with class D and Schroeder Method care to discuss? |
Superb! Thank you for sharing dorkwad! This is delightful, to see Class D implementation working superbly. I am getting stunning results with Schroeder Method going direct from DACs into amps. Obviously, one has to ensure that if using a dedicated DAC that there is software volume control so that the signal is not sent unattenuated to the amp!
|
Audioman58, perhaps you didn't notice that this is a thread for discussion of a particular method, not promotion of one's favorite brand/products. |
Bob, I think you pose a good question. From your description I hear you saying that you are concerned about the AS splitters' all four being the same direction, i.e. the two "reducing" ones have the arrow the wrong way.
This sounds bad, but I paid no attention to the directionality of the splitters. I pay little attention beyond using as manufacturer indicates on the cable, to directionality of cables. I have done several tests over the years and all directionality failed my Law of Efficacy (the difference was indiscernible or negligible). The splitters I used have been all stock items intended for one way splitting, and my use is unorthodox, so I presume the arrows, etc. will be "wrong way". I could care less. My entire methodology is against the grain, so to speak. :) Perhaps 20 years ago I would have been disturbed by it, but no longer. I conduct dozens of changes to systems and that type of change does not meet my threshold of importance; focusing on that level of change would slow down my progress in changes to systems.
My assessment is that the directionality is not the cause of the change in sound, but rather the use of a homogenous set versus a mixed set. Between those two alternatives I believe you would hear a clearly discernible difference.
I have done similar also and mixing splitters does change the sound. That was one way to assess the splitters' sonic characteristics and determine a favorite brand for the system being built. So, Kudos for being creative! At this point manufacturers are using stock splitters and making them available for my Method. My guess is the manufacturers are not yet willing to retool or change their protocol on a stock product that is so low volume.
|
Oh, yeah, blind testing would be easy with the Schroeder Method cables compared to singles. When I did the Audio by Van Alstine ABX Comprator review I was comparing, and passed repeatedly, comparisons with cables. Those were some tough judgments because the sound differed in slight ways. But, the difference with double IC is radical compared to that. I would expect it to be easy to select the proper cable in blind tests with it.
|
steakster, congratulations on your improvement! I had tried SPDIF cables in Schroeder Method fairly soon after discovering it, and found that it is highly efficacious for DACs. I also tried it with AES/EBU and it worked equally as well.
One of the wonderful aspects of Schroeder Method is how it lays open the previously distorted, unrevealed nuances of the signal. The music opens up, as opposed to being occluded by signal loss/distortion. As you found out, a system that strikes the owner as being extremely refined can have a large amount of improvement still to show. After dozens of improvements taking systems well beyond where I thought they could go, I concluded that there is no practical limit to the improvement of an audio system; a person will typically run out of funds before hitting the performance wall. Thankfully, Schroeder Method is immanently affordable, but of course, can scale up, too.
I strongly suggest that if you are going for an ultimate system with your current electronics you try no less than three different SPDIF cables with Schroeder Method. You may even wish to mix and match, which is heresy, but I I have found out by trying "heretical" things (such as the Method) that accepted practice doesn't always lead to best results. :)
|
maplegrovemusic, yes, from what I have seen as well the results are universally positive.
A patent application for Schroeder Method has been submitted.
I believe the reason why it was never brought to market is because it flies in the face of theory. It is counterintuitive and would seemingly only potentially introduce problems. However, as those who actually try it have learned, there is an evidential gap in theory, and the double IC is sensational, resulting in superior performance over a single IC.
|
Merely swapping the position of a couple of Schroeder Method RCA ICs makes for interesting system building. Moving the double interconnects around the system alters the sonic signature significantly. You may think you have the positioning optimal, but until you try alternative placements you do not know. It can vary with each speaker system and collection of components. |
flat4, thank you for your extended discussion. It's nice to have further confirmation that Schroeder Method was agreeable to your Crown Class D amp. These are important data points to address the initial concern that was voiced to me regarding use with Class D amps. As more evidence accrues it may be concluded eventually that Schroeder Method is compatible with Class D universally. I hesitate to make such a sweeping statement now, because there always could be a weird topology in an amp that might react poorly. I am still a long way from having it demonstrated to be absolutely benign operationally. But, it's moving in the right direction!
I'm not surprised at all that the Crown amp's performance was lifted by Schroeder Method. I have never had an occurrence where an amp's performance was not elevated by the Method. This is further confirmation of my belief that the double IC would benefit any price range of cables and components. I believe it can, with the proper interconnects, outperform nearly all passively networked cables regardless of cost.
You can either make your own Schroeder Method XLR cables or buy them from vendors. I am still using assembled Clarity Cable Organic ICs conjoined by Audio Sensibility XLR Y Cables (NOTE: the terminations of the Y cables for this function must be opposites, as the terminations of XLR cables are not identical). I believe ANTICABLES, Audio Sensibility and Acoustic BBQ would make Schroeder Method XLR ICs. The information coming back to me at this point is that a manufactured Schroeder Method cable is superior sonically to an assembled one. However, with my experimentation the assembled ones are advantageous for reviewing.
I currently have the double ICs feeding some prodigious Monos that are on review. Unassailable sound quality!
|
Some lovely additional input from veroguy; thank you! Your post strikes me as indicating you are a no-nonsense sort of fellow. This is also good input to share about class D use with another brand.
One thing I noticed is that you seem to prefer the all copper Schroeder Method Acoustic BBQ IC to the standard silver/copper Signal Cable IC. That's not surprising to me. I happen to be using a silver/copper mix in my "internal" speaker wiring for the PureAudioProject Trio15 Horn 1, and I like the result. Ironically, this thin stranded wiring is from Radio Shack! I had a spool of it sitting for about, what, 6-7 years since they went defunct and decided to try it on the PAP. Works well, I suspect because of the silver/copper mix. But, I really do need to try a heavy gauge copper cable, maybe 10 AWG to see if that does better. I suspect it would.
The good news regarding class D use is helpful for me, because I was hoping to do comparison between an active X-over rig with six channels of amplification versus a passive X-over setup with two channels (stereo or monos) with tri-wiring. I would like to use all Schroeder Method ICs in that comparison. This would involve the Legacy Audio Whisper DSW Clarity Edition custom speakers that can be switched between both modes. I did the review a while back for Dagogo.com (BTW, one of my conclusions was that I could make either passive or active speaker setup superior depending upon the complexion of the entire system. But, in an apples to apples comparison, i.e. amps, active x-over was superior).
I already have gotten familiarity with the two channel and tri-wiring the Whisper speakers, but was holding back on Schroeder Method with the active x-over and 6 channel of class D setup because of concerns voiced to me about it from industry members. Now, it seems that the momentum is building to conclude that Schroeder Method is benign to Class D. I am still not willing to go promote it as universally benign (erring on the side of caution), but I am encouraged by the feedback!
|
Thank you very much, piouser and shout1cobra, for your input!
Doubling speaker cables has always been a good way for me to elevate a system's sound. Not sure what happened with the double 16 Ga. you used. I usually try to get the AWG to about 10 for speakers, and that means doubling some substantial cables. I'm not surprised at all that you heard more from doubling speaker cables when using the Schroeder Method. It is much more revealing of such things than standard single IC, imo.
We must have half a dozen class D amps now in use with Schroeder Method, which is great! I'm guessing some others have tried and not discussed publicly, too.
Good job, shoup1cobra, to try an alternative location, as opposed to simply� concluding that there is no efficacy because you didn't hear it in the first trial. I encourage you to get Y cables, as budget hard connectors might be quite lossy for the signal. When I was using hard splitters with some components they were very close together, and I always put a piece of foam or leather between them.
|
This week I had my first shot at using a set of same brand pre/class D amp. I am running a double Schroeder Method setup, two pairs of double ICs, one set from DAC to pre, and the other from pre to Class D amp. The results are as typical, wonderful! On this particular review set of components I am using RCA for the first pair, and XLR on the second pair. So much more is extracted from the components when Schroeder Method is used.
I am in awe of what is happening with these electronics. I have heard a lot of class D, but never had one impress this much. It's not a high dollar unit, which the masses will cheer. I need to investigate how this is happening more thoroughly. Class D in my use is proving VERY agreeable to Schroeder Method. YMMV and please do your own educating on this topic before trying this "do at your own risk" activity. :)
Also, in my use passive preamp has been of no concern whatsoever. Passives have worked splendidly with the Method. |
spenav, a very nice description of the benefits of Schroeder Method in your system; kudos! It is also of benefit to the community as you shared about use with a class D amp, even a modified one. It is also good to demonstrate that it influences XLR as well as RCA. The system I currently am running has two sets as well, one RCA and the other XLR.
Your description is accurate to what I have experienced with use; not a radical remake/skewing of he sonic attributes as if swapping out cables for another brand, but superior in the attributes already enjoyed through increase or a deepening of them. The intensity of the change is that of a component, but without potential to skew the sound away from what is desired. I suggest that you consider also the information retrieval and dynamics. You should have superior definition and better macrodynamics, as well.
Now, if a different brand of ICs were used in Schroeder Method, then as expected the entire presentation would change in ways that may be more or less enjoyable in terms of clarity, distribution of intensity along the frequency spectrum (i.e. more bass and less treble presence, or vice versa), etc.
Going with the affordable Mogami cables that is a sensible, efficacious change to a system. It also confirms my conclusion that Schroeder Method is efficacious with all ICs, regardless of cost. That does not mean I think that an inexpensive IC in Schroeder Method will typically outperform a higher end double IC, but it supports the fact that audiophiles along the cost/performance spectrum can benefit.
|
spenav, you are welcome.
When I revealed Schroeder Method more than a year ago I did not realize the business potential. I did not have perspective in business, nor confidence to seek a patent. Someone who did partnered with me, and now there is a patent application.
My total profit so far from Schroeder Method are two pair of prototype double cables and some Y cables on loan from a cable manufacturer. I spent more on multiple sets of hard splitters and Y-cables for comparison than the cables are worth. What's nice is that even if this pays off for me, the guy with a tight budget can still do a homemade Schroeder Method set of interconnects. It really can be a win/win for everyone. :)
I concur with you whole heartedly that some people have made good money for far less a contribution. I can feel comfortable about Schroeder Method that it's not a rip-off scheme. It's a legit method with obvious results.
|
vinylshadow, thanks for asking; this is intended as a premium, HiFi activity. I intend it for use on the best systems available. I believe the Method is beneficial for all systems, but in particular I intend it for high end rigs.
I have continued to use my method in a variety of systems with no ill effects, and always very nice improvement in sound quality. Recently, I have been reviewing a premium tube output DAC that responds beautifully to the Schroeder Method of IC Placement.
I have also tried it with yet another set of cables (also under review, and again have success. I have not signed off on use of my method with passively networked cables. I don't much care for them anyway. As prior, until it is demonstrated to be benign to nearly any conceivable system or with particular cables, it is a "do at your own risk" activity. But, again, I have not heard of a single instance of trouble.
|
vinylshadow, succinctly, no limit; my experience is that Schroeder Method works on both economical and high end cables. Note once again, I am not suggesting open trials of passively networked cables such as MIT. I simply do not know the effects, but will not endorse it without support for the idea.
It does not, in my experience cause cheap cables to leapfrog more expensive ones. Sorry; quality rule still applies. It might even be said that the better/more favored the cable, the more it will benefit from the Method.
I have only officially recommended homogenous sets, but some are using mixed and with good results. Your call.
I use, depending upon application, both Audioquest and Audio Sensibility Y cables. I do not like the degradation I have heard in use of splitters for XLR and RCA cables.
Plugs are all over the place; everyone has a favorite. I assess entire cables, not DIY, so I'm not your authority on naked plugs.
I believe there are several $20-50K rigs out there using the Schroeder Method. I have found no limits on performance enhancements in use of Schroeder Method of IC Placement associated with the quality of the rig. |
Are you saying the Y cables are going to be the same length as the ICs, at 1'? That would be a rather odd implementation of the Schroeder Method, with the Y cables the same length as the ICs. In almost every implementation I have done/seen, the ICs are much longer than the Y cables.
Frankly, I'm not sure you will gain great benefit if you end up with two pair of ICs totalling 3'; the Y cables contributing 2', and the ICs themselves at 1' long. I really cannot tell you the outcome of that, as it is fairly the reverse of the intent of the Schroeder Method as implemented. I hope it works, but I would not be surprised if it did not work well. The idea is to maximize the contribution/length of the ICs versus the Y cables.
OR, are you saying the entire doubled IC cable will be 1' long? Then you would have two Y cables at about 6", and the twin ICs at 6".
|
I am relying upon the opinion of the IP Attorney i am partnering with for the patent. :)
Adurerca,
I have not seen anyone in the audio industry or community warn of capacitance issues at even 1m lengths, even with a pair of Schroeder Method sets in a system. I have used two pair of 2m Schroeder Method ICs in systems on a regular basis, both XLR and RCA.
Imo, longer ICs and shorter Y cables would be better. But, only direct comparison would tell. If Blue Jeans won't make shorter Y cables, get 2 foot ICs from Blue Jeans, and y cables from Audio Sensibility - unless you must have L/R leads so long.
Disclaimer: I have reviewed Audio Sensibility Y Cables for Dagogo.com
|
jayctoy, not sure what you mean by "fleshing out more than an IC can accommodate"? I have found NO limit to what cables can reveal as components and systems are built. Why would you think you know the limits of the system? Your comment doesn't make sense to me. I would guess that if you tried the Schroeder Method you would find a lot more of what can be fleshed out, and that is not even close to the limit. Dozens more changes and improvements can be had with almost any system. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment, but I don't think you have come anywhere near the limits of what a cable can transmit.
Yes, balanced is possible; I have done so many times. I prefer to use my method with either RCA or XLR.
I am not sure if you are the first person here to try it on SACD. Should be interesting. It's "do at your own risk", which I presume you know if you read this thread. But, I have not heard of a single instance to date of any issues/damage, etc. from it. The only method that imo can beat the Schroeder Method is to split the signal and run four channels of amps instead of two, but that's a pricey advantage.
|
jayctoy, I was referring to use of Schroeder Method with SACD. I didn't recall anyone discussing that. Perhaps you did along the way, but I may not have realized it, and have not been curating this thread for a long time. I did recall your endorsement, enjoyment of it. So, it was my wonder at the use of SACD, not a thought that you were just getting into the game. You should find great value in using it with XLR. |
antigrunge2, I appreciate your feedback here! It’s quite a bit of fun to explore different methods, and I am glad that you took the time to do so.
If by your phrase, "Zodiac’s 10m BNC clock cable", you mean a 10m long run of cable, then I suggest you inquire as to what the capacitance of that cable will be, and should discuss with your manufacturer.
In the Iconoclast by Belden and BAV Power Cord review, just published, Galen Gareis, former product design engineer, pointed out to me that one potential concern exists with the Schroeder Method, a potential for certain cables to when paired have excessive capacitance, i.e. like an unfurled capacitor. This is not a danger for the vast majority of cables, but could theoretically be so for certain flat conductor cables, like foils.
I mention this because somewhere there is likely someone with a custom set of foil ICs who might think of doubling them. THAT probably should be avoided. Also, extremely long runs of cable change the impedance, and some esoteric components may not fare well with it. I say this because in all likelihood there are not many/any serious ribbon ICs, because this would also impact the other parameters of L,R,C - and this may be far less than optimum as opposed to more traditional cable types for ICs.
As I have said all along, repeatedly, this is a do at your own risk activity, and if there is any question of the particular cables, length, type, etc. one needs to check with the manufacturer about it.
|
antigrunge2, LOL, yes, I just noticed this when I saw comments in another thread in regard to 10 MHz clock... Too funny! Thanks for the clarification. :)
Your input would be appreciated, because to date I do not know of anyone who has tried Schroeder Method with an external clock! |
