|
|
All: I’m adding to my last prior post here to provide more context to the Canare Starquad story and their wiring scheme. As one can see from their wiring diagram, their 2 hot conductors are sliced together in parallel. Likewise, their 2 return conductors are spliced together in parallel. Note one common shield element, however. http://www.canare.com/uploadeddocuments/cat11_p35.pdf |
@kingrex Your description of the design of the Genesis IC is indeed “different but similar.” The Canare Starquad cable design is even more similar to “Schroeder Method configuration.” The Starquad design has 2 hot, 2 returns and 1 shield. In the Schroeder Method configuration, however, everything (including the shield) is doubled and configured in parallel. |
@kingrex I don’t think anything is being “filtered.”
Some speculate that the improved sound qualities perceived during even casual listening sessions is attributed to the parallel configuration having nearly twice the bandwidth of their single-run counterparts, with the attendant reduction in internal reflections for electrical signals transmitted through the parallel configuration relative to their single-run counterparts.
I’m not aware of other ways of achieving this effect. If the “increased bandwidth” speculation is the correct attribution to the audible improvements in reproduced sound, then interconnect designers should devote their energies to designing cables having the greatest bandwidth possible. But even then, implementing the Schroeder Method to those cable designs should yield further improved sonic benefits over their best single-run counterparts. |
@elizabeth A single cable assembly is certainly preferable to using 2 single-run cables with terminal Y-splitters at both ends. But using a set of Y-splitters (4 total for a stereo run with 4 IC’s) is inexpensive enough for one to tinker with the method in the short term.
Teo Audio makes a Double-Double version of their liquid metal GC-II Jr as a set of paralleled assemblies terminated with single RCA connectors at each end. (Alas, their A’gon listing expired earlier today, but I’m sure they’ll relist it.). Taras of Teo Audio (@taras22 here) shared listening impressions of that product compared against some of their pricier single-run cables. See one of the Teo Audio threads in the “Cables” forum for that post. |
@ozzy I think @douglas_schroeder tested his method with XLR-terminated balanced IC’s. Check the longer Teo Audio thread for details. BTW, that thread—like most here—goes down several rabbit holes unrelated to the thread topic. I think Doug tested the method using XLR-terminated balanced cables from manufacturers other than Teo Audio cables. |
|
@ozzy Did you go to the comments section at the very end of the article? It’s posted there and not in the body of his review. |
@kingrex I’ll quote the relevant passages from Bob Smith’s comment: “Noteworthy in the above is the fact that the Capacitance doubles and the upper Cutoff Frequency (where above which the signal begins to be attenuated) almost doubles. So in the event that we “double-up” our audio cables, we actually extend their bandwidth – albeit we are talking in the region of radio frequencies so there is no real benefit there with respect to extending the fundamental audio bandwidth. “What IS significant though is the fact that all of the above leads to a potential reduction in reflected energy and/or standing waves within the cable, and that is because of two primary factors. By lowering the Character Impedance and consequently, raising the Cutoff Frequency, we “push” or force any potential reflections up to twice the frequency at which they would otherwise occur. That then leads to two other outcomes. First, higher frequencies find it more difficult to propagate down the length of any conductor due to the “skin effect,” and are therefore usually attenuated more with respect to those that occur at lower frequencies. As a result, lower magnitude levels of reflected energy translates into less interaction with the Source and Load circuits. That means less potential for the formation of any associated Phase Distortion artifacts as outlined above.” Please note that this is the opinion of Bob Smith. I’m not an EE to assess his opinion. I doubt folks are going to go “all in” with modding all of their IC’s this way, regardless of the cost or the myriad of interconnections contemplated. So the fear of HYDRA is avoided. The questions for many are a bit different: (1) What audible improvements could I achieve for those 1 or 2 critical sources (that is, those sources representing ~80%+ of my listening time) when those sources are connected to my receiver, integrated amp or preamp using paralleled IC’s? (2) Could I realize a significant improvement using the Schroeder Method with IC’s of a more *modest* cost that rivals or exceeds the cost of my expensive IC’s? (3) And if I didn’t want to engage the “enticing offer” from my favorite cable manufacturer to buy his/her best IC set due to the law of diminishing returns, then could I nevertheless achieve even better quality by buying another run of my present cable using this method? |
@ozzy I’ll defer to @douglas_schroeder to address that question. |
@mrdecibel I think the MA assemblies with the SSI tech wires are “conventional” in nature (think Canare Starquad but only at a much higher level with respect to one type of conductor). |
If one wants to try a conventional "double-double" with Canare Microphone cable to avoid use of the Y-splitters, then I have the following recommendation for you that I found to work extremely well (2 FT pair tested at this point). Contact Gary P. at HAVE Inc. and ask him to make you a set of these cables per the "Celander Specifications": Dual Star Quad Cable Single RCA-RCA 2 FT. BUILT PER CUSTOMER SUPPLIED SPEC USING CANARE L-4E5C STAR QUAD CABLE. PM me for details if interested.
|
Here is a pic of the Dual StarQuad assembly for one channel. The 2 cables have a loose twist, inserted into a black mesh sheath and then a shrink wrap is applied at the RCA connectors. https://photos.app.goo.gl/84zWpkB3toFuMMJw6 |
My apologies to Teo Audio for inadvertently borrowing their “double double” phrase. I’ll refer to the above HAVE assemblies as “Dual StarQuad” assemblies. |
|
@taras22 A term from curling, “hurry hard”? |
@genjamon It’s not simply paralleled signal-carrying conductors. A lot of prior designs have that configuration. This is a different topology entirely. Read Doug’s article to appreciate the difference. |
The Audio Sensibility connectors that Taras of Teo Audio recommended are costly, IMHO. But it is an option should one want to test the method with very expensive IC’s. |
My HAVE, Inc. contacts sent me a dual 110-ohm IC assembly terminated with RCA connectors when I ordered a dual 110-ohm IC assembly terminated with AES/EBU connectors. Just sent them an email about it. |
Maxima95: I’ll follow up with a pm to you. |
Maxima95: They will build anything you want. A dual IC assembly terminated with standard XLR connectors should be viable. They typically need to use a slightly higher gauge StarQuad IC to accommodate all the spliced, paralleled conductors in the connector. Just ask for Gary in sales and specifically ask for the Celander specification of a Dual StarQuad IC assembly. Here is the Canare product catalog page for their Canare StarQuad IC conductors: http://www.canare.com/ProductItemDisplay.aspx?productItemID=53 |
IMO, assembling a set of paralleled Teo Audio GCII's with splitters yielded a tremendous boost in my overall SQ over single run GCII's. I used the solid Monster products from a China company on Ebay. Perhaps a better splitter would further improve the resultant SQ.
|
I decided to evaluate the recent digital cable HAVE sent to me. The cable is a 2-ft run Dual Canare StarQuad 110-ohm assembly terminated with Canare RCA connectors, wherein the assembly includes two paralleled Canare DA202 IC’s spliced together in the assembly ( that is, a Shroeder Method paralleled IC assembly without splitters). My comparator is a 2-ft run stock (i.e., single-run) Canare StarQuad 110-ohm IC terminated with AES/EBU connectors, wherein the cable includes a slightly higher gauge Canare DA206 110-ohm IC. So both digital cables include the same type of Canare StarQuad IC conductor "DNA". See the following links for a description of the two Canare digital cables: http://www.canare.com/ProductItemDisplay.aspx?productItemID=67http://www.canare.com/ProductItemDisplay.aspx?productItemID=66The test set-up is as follows: CAL Delta CD Transport (output clock jitter at 50psec); test digital cable(s) connected to relevant digital outputs of the Delta; Theta DS PRO Basic IIIa DAC; Dual Assembly Canare audio cable (2-ft length) connecting DAC to Audible Illusions M3A; Teo Audio Ultra (6-ft length) from AI M3A to powered ATC SCM20-2A’s monitors. I’m hearing even more detail in the complexity of musical presentation with the Dual Canare StarQuad assembly digital cable over the stock Canare StarQuad AES/EBU counterpart. For example, one Radiohead track from Disc 2 of OKNOTOK (#4) include a set of chimes or bells that continuously play throughout the most of the complex portions of that track that I never heard before. On that track, for example, while both cables provided sonic cues to the chimes within the track, the dual assembly displayed greater openness, microdynamics, less smear and more relaxed, organic presentation than the stock IC. By the way, I had removed my Sonic Frontiers Ultra Jitterbug reclocker from my system before doing any tests. In a slightly different configuration (Teo Audio Liquid Pre passive line stage in place of the AI M3A active preamp), the introduction of the 2 stock Canare AES/EBU digital cables and the SF reclocker introduced smearing into the resultant SQ from the digital signal path, based upon my conclusion of using only one stock Canare AES/EBU digital cable. And I say this with my informed appreciation the Teo Audio passive is a cleaner signal processor than the AI M3A active preamp. The SF reclocker only provided a marginal improvement in jitter reduction (40psec with the reclocker installed vs. 50psec with the reclocker removed). It’s clear the digital cable contributes a lot to the final resultant SQ achieved. |
For anyone interested in the HAVE, Inc. products, please understand that they are a custom order house. You order it; you're stuck with it. (No refund-oriented, audition/trial period permitted.) Order from other folks if that bothers you. I would recommend Teo Audio for you in that case.
|
So my HAVE, Inc. contacts sent the correct 2-ft run of Dual Canare StarQuad 110-ohm IC assembly terminated with AES/EBU (XLR) connectors. I compared it against the 2-ft run Dual Canare StarQuad 110-ohm assembly terminated with Canare RCA connectors that HAVE, Inc. sent to me previously. Both digital cables includes two paralleled Canare DA202 IC’s spliced together in the assembly (that is, a Shroeder Method paralleled IC assembly). So both digital cables include the identical Canare StarQuad IC conductor "DNA.”
Both assemblies sounded very similar, if not identical, in terms of SQ. See my earlier post. |
Digital coax connections use 75-ohm cable; digital AES/EBU connections use 110-ohm cable.
In principle, the both of these paralleled assemblies should have lower than optimal characteristic impedance. (To answer your specific question, the dual assemblies should have one-half the characteristic impedance of their single run counterparts.)
In practice, however, both provided better
SQ than a digital cable having the “true” characteristic impedance. I don’t pretend to understand the underlying theory for this result. |
|
Tuffy, I am certain the Teo Audio folks have evaluated their current lineup of IC’s in all permutations. It would be insightful to hear their impressions. |
I have evaluated a 6-ft run Dual Canare StarQuad assembly terminated with Canare RCA connectors in place of my 2-meter run of Teo Audio Ultra (single) IC’s between the preamp and powered ATC monitors (see setup below), wherein the assembly includes two paralleled Canare L-4E5C StarQuad audio IC’s spliced together in the assembly ( that is, a Shroeder Method paralleled IC assembly without splitters). Here is the Canare spec sheet: http://www.canare.com/ProductItemDisplay.aspx?productItemID=53The test set-up is as follows: CAL Delta CD Transport (output clock jitter at 50psec); Dual Canare StarQuad digital assemblies connected to relevant digital outputs of the Delta and into inputs of a Theta DS PRO Basic IIIa DAC; Dual Assembly Canare StarQuad audio cable (2-ft length) connecting DAC to Audible Illusions M3A; Dual Canare StarQuad assembly (6-ft length) from AI M3A to powered ATC SCM20-2A’s monitors. Though it’s too early to render a verdict on the Dual Canare assembly, I’m frankly shocked how well it sounds against the outstanding Teo Audio Ultra IC. I’m hearing a lot of the same detail in the complexity of musical presentation, pace and dimensionality with the Dual Canare StarQuad assembly as I enjoy with the Ultra. I would be seriously interested how well a Double Double Ultra sounds by comparison to the Teo Audio Ultra single run IC or this inexpensive Dual Canare StarQuad assembly. |
Think post-its. Pretty simple. Adhesive-backed paper, just not super-glue adhesive. |
@taras22 and @teo_audio
1+ for emphasis. Nice reminders
|
I would follow the advice of Teo_Audio and use the cables upstream of the preamp. I have used both passive and active pre’s with the cables. No issues. |
I agree with Doug about not mixing brands, models or lengths of IC’s in a particular paralleled assembly of his method with splitters. It’s just not right. 😂😂 |
The valid comparator is the Schroeder, parallelled version (whether by using splitters or constructing an assembly without splitters) versus the single-run counterpart. The Schroeder paralleled version trounces the single-run version every time—and by a fair margin. How the Schroeder paralleled version of an inexpensive IC compares to a more expensive, single-run IC is open to interpretation/analysis by the listener/evaluator. Doug has made numerous comparisons among different configurations from different brand IC’s. Doug might offer his insight on this. The Teo Audio folks (taras22 and teo_audio) have made versions of the Schroeder assemblies without external splitters, which they dub as “Double Double” IC’s for I believe their GC-Jr IC and their Ultra IC. If memory serves well, they might have compared the SQ’s of their new Double Double IC’s against other single-run counterparts of their IC lineup. See the pages 4-5 of the following forum thread: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/new-teo-audio-ics-who-has-them |
Maxima95, All of the Teo Audio “Double Double” IC’s are assemblies in which 2 IC’s are spliced together in parallel without external splitters being used. Same applies to the Dual Canare assemblies I’ve spec’ed from HAVE, Inc. |
If you prefer unshielded IC’s, then this method isn’t for you. But your question has been asked and answered in this thread. |
The HAVE folks make their standard Canare StarQuad RCA-terminated audio IC’s with the braided shield spliced together with the two blue conductors. The specification I asked them to follow for the Dual Canare StarQuad assemblies includes fully-connected shields in parallel with the 4 paralleled blue conductors. So it’s a completely shielded design.
I ordered an electrically unshielded version of that cable. (The braided shields are not tied to any conductor in the assembly.). We will see how it sounds. |
And I do understand the aversion towards using a shield for designers building an IC from scratch using a set of proprietary or specialty conductors. |
My HAVE contact told me that some folks who order standard RCA-terminated audio IC’s using the Canare StarQuad wire sometimes request to have the Shield connected to the ground conductors at one terminus. They didn’t have any explanation for it, as they are a custom house and do as the customer wishes.
I’ve heard folks doing this with power cords, where I recall the shield is combined with ground conductor at the plug end (wall input) only, leaving the IEC plug unconnected to the shield. |
I suspect the dielectric properties of these paralleled IC assemblies might offer the surprisingly unexpected benefits extending beyond the predicted theoretical advantages owing to simply adding additional conductors in a larger twist or wrap. Whether it’s the additional jackets or air in the assemblies, or something else, it’s clear the paralleled assemblies are offering something unique in terms of SQ improvement.
|
The Teo Audio guys have the goods on a lot of these metrics in terms of SQ comparisons of their single-run IC’s versus their corresponding SM, Double-Double counterpart IC assemblies. A “SQ truth table” of their products would be worth seeing. |
I think we’re losing some of the tree species of this vast forest, in terms of proper comparators.
The SM is best analyzed using the same topology and brand of IC. The comparators are the single-run counter parts versus the SM paralleled version, regardless of how the SM is assembled (with or without external splitters).
I am not surprised that an AQ King Cobra SM assembly with AQ external splitters might sound better than a manufactured HAVE Dual Canare StarQuad SM assembly without external splitters. Why no surprise? It’s likely that a single-run of the AQ King Cobra IC displays higher SQ than a single-run of the Canare StarQuad IC. All the SM assembly does is improve the SQ for a given single-run IC of a given topology and brand when so configured.
But if one one finds a SM assembly with external splitters to be superior to the single-run IC counterparts, then that’s a great discovery without a lot of cost, as Doug points out. But a manufactured SM assembly using the very same IC materials without splitters should be even better. Less parts, simpler assembly design should yield better SQ overall.
This is part art and part science. But the part science isn’t exactly rocket science.
|
Jayctoy, that’s great!
But I am referring to how folks should be comparing assemblies. If one does not want to make a cash outlay for a discrete SM assembly without splitters, then I understand that very well and for a variety of reasons, such as cost, availability of a DIY’er, or a cable manufacturer willing to offer custom services or products.
And I do endorse setting up test SM assemblies with identical IC topologies/brands using a set of splitters. It’s inexpensive enough to do.
Just be realistic with expectations. A SM assembly with inexpensive single-run IC’s will yield dramatic SQ improvements over the same inexpensive IC’s deployed in a single-run configuration.
Will the SM assembly version of an inexpensive IC be a SQ giant killer over a single-run of a more expensive, higher SQ, IC? Maybe so, maybe not.
But will the SM assembly version of the inexpensive IC be a SQ giant killer over a SM assembly of the more expensive, higher SQ, IC? Likely not. |
Different preamps (and sources) have varying degrees of distance that separates L/R channel connections. The Monster-styled, solid Y-splitters provide the most challenging connections, whereas the AQ-styled, extended-tailed Y-splitters providing a bit more space. The plurality of paralleled IC pairs can be dressed by applying a loose twist to each pairing (or using Velcro cable ties as needed). |
So let’s see. We have Teo Audio, HAVE, Audio Sensibility, and perhaps some custom DYI’ers like grannyring who are willing to make paralleled SM IC assemblies without requiring external splitters. The SM movement is gaining some traction. |
Has anyone tried the SM cabling from a preamp to a NuPrime STA200 amp? This NuPrime amp as a bandwidth of 10 Hz to 100kHz (-3dB at 900kHz). Could be magical....
|
So how do you discern which cable is responsible for the perceived SQ in the Schroeder Method? It seems as though you are changing two variables at once. In one case, you have only one cable total in the splitter configuration. In the other case, you have two different cables in a parallel configuration.
It seems that the Schroeder Method might exaggerate or reveal the SQ differences between IC’s when two different sets of IC’s are used, such as 2 Teo Audio IC’s in a first SM assembly compared to 2 Audioquest IC’s in a second SM assembly. But I’m less certain that a SM assembly having a mixed set of IC’s would be terribly revealing as to which IC was responsible for the effect in SQ.
Am I missing something? |
The SQ should improve once each IC is broken in. |
Has anyone used Teo Audio cables as IC’s between a preamp and class D switching amp? If all of this alleged fear of using the SM assemblies with class D amps due to wide bandwidth signal transfer messing with the class D switching frequencies is valid, then the Teo Audio cable’s having 1GHz+ bandwidth should cause problems with class D amps, too. On the other hand, if class D amps don’t malfunction with Teo Audio IC’s, then it’s likely that SM assemblies won’t cause problems with a class D amp. |
