@ jayctoy
Have to concur, the results are quite spectacular with the use of two cable sets connected with splitters, and even more so when we terminated two cable assemblies into one plug to produce the Double Double.
The sound stage in this configuration is huge, dynamic slam increases, and while theory would predict a diminished high end response due to high capacitance the highs are actually more extended, detailed, and with no attendant harshness or listeners fatigue.
We have been playing this configuration for several weeks now and have had none of the issues that the theory quoted above seems to predict. That being said we still are being cautious because of those theoretical concerns, but so far the theory is having some serious trouble reconciling itself with the reality on the ground. |
@stringreen
Audible is actually a bit of an understatement.
Its easily comparable to an amp or pre-amp change sort of difference.
In fact the level of improvement it brings to the table makes it a most effective cable nay-sayer-slayer. |
Wouldn’t worry a bit....we are sort of borrowing it too, kinda ....its a play on a Canadianism that has attained a level alongside eh for its ubiquity and hurry hard for its uniqueness. |
Yes-sur-ee-Bob eh, and the other a short form used when ordering a coffee with double cream double sugar @ your local Timmies ( generally pronounced dbldbl ). |
@tuffy72561
We have done several direct comparisons between a Double Double and a corresponding system using splitters and in each case the Double Double configuration simply smoked/obliterated/crushed the splitter option in every way possible ( like it weren’t even remotely close eh ).
But the one big advantage that the splitter system does have is its ability to potentially put a pretty final end to any discussion about whether cables somehow affect the sound of a system. Any "cable hater"/flat earther who could sit through a demo that begins with a single cable test and then goes to a splitter system using the same cable type and not hear a very significant improvement should at that point be encouraged to take up another hobby because they have just pronounced themselves functionally deaf ( sorry but there is really no more polite way to say this ).
And btw, given what Doug has found applying the doubling protocol to balanced cables, this also puts the idea that balanced cables as absolutely ideal and heaven’s gift to signal transfer into a kinda weird perspective. Read, you can’t have the perfect cable, as proponents of balanced claim, and then have that prefect cable produce dramatically better sonic results when doubled. Logically, being significantly better than perfect, puts the original claim of perfection into a very interesting light ( like maybe, uhhh, it weren’t so perfect to start with eh...).
And furthermore, every increase in the quality of the parent cable assembly produces a corresponding increase in sound quality of the Double Double version. So while doubling of conductors changes things significantly, parent cable quality is still the main predictor of end result sound quality.
|
@jaytoy
" I can’t imagine a conjoin Teo Jr, how good it will be.... "
Well it does sound very very good, especially against other cable combinations. This probably in part due to its ability to handle the one big problem the doubling of cable assemblies entails, that is the doubling of system capacitance.
TEO cables have very low capacitance in a standard configuration, and if my reading of the relevant theory is correct, even lower in the doubled configuration. Our assemblies seem by happen-sense to be the ideal signal transfer system for cable doubling ( they retain all the advantages and avoid the one glaring problem ).
|
@ mr_m
Actually such cables have been made in the past ( TEO Audio made examples of this design several years ago and Bob Smith mentions making a very successful one one in the comments attached to the Dagogo article that introduced the Schroeder Method ). The positive draws of this design are pretty obvious: greater bandwidth, lower inductance and characteristic impedance, but then so are the drawbacks: higher capacitance, and the biggie, instability when faced with high/large complex loads, which btw can become "terminal" with certain designs of power supply.
The capacitance issue in most applications simply means added warmth which is ok( or in some applications glare which is not ok ) but in longer lengths can produce problems ( and super long lengths can produce intractable problems....in industrial settings super long runs of standard cable designs can produce capacitance high enough to make relays inoperative, so one can infer that beginning with a design that doubles capacitance will put some limits on effective cable length ).
But the instability issue is a different kettle of fish. It can, when the two legs are of a significantly different type, produce the lack of synergy that both jayctoy and tuffy have experienced, it can also produce the type of oscillations that years ago put our experimentation with this design to rest. Btw it was during the first discussion I had with Doug about the viability of using this design that this rather negative experience was brought up and that directly gave rise to the warning/disclaimer that Doug has wisely added to his subsequent discussions about the Schroeder Method ( and good on Doug for being cautious when faced with something that has produced such wild results...I think most people would just charge forward, torpedoes be damned...we certainly did and closely skirted disaster ).
So the bottom line with this design is it has some very obvious benefits ( eg lowering the characteristic impedance helps digital signals, greater bandwidth helps all signals, higher capacitance can be a mixed blessing assuming cable lengths are held relatively short ) and some potential problems such as a perceived lack of synergy or a really bad synergy that can escalate into terminal instability.
So while experimentation is much fun lets proceed with caution eh. To paraphrase, its all fun and games until someone loses amp or a speaker.
|
Sorry to disagree but the TEO cables are not shielded ( btw we are very much in the non-shielded camp ) and they work quite wonderfully in both the splitter way to produce a double IC and the co-joined method ( our Double Double series ). |
Well it most certainly is the right tool to put the flat-earthers back on their heels ( at least the ones who claim that cables couldn’t possibly make a difference ). Unfortunately the measurement chapter still has a bone to gnaw on since the measurements the doubling produces does predict a large performance increase. That being said there is something else going on with this concept I feel goes beyond the predictions.
So it seems we may win an important battle over the flat-landers but most likely the war will continue, though admittedly on a much different ground but against a weakened foe. |
Yeah, no Lenz's law issues which can really mess up cable performance.
And hope your build works out and meets your expectations. |
Steve @ Audio Sensibility has made very fine cables for quite a long time now( I use his power cords in my system and have been very happy with their performance ) and his stab at building using the Schroeder Method will most likely be stellar as well. Looking forward to hearing your impressions. |
@shkong78
then the geometry of cable making is making less sense.
Another way of looking at this is to say the commonly agreed methods of making cable upon is making less sense, that is, the methods that are based on the use of hard metals ( copper, silver, aluminum etc...) However when one looks at methods that use amorphous metals ( semi-liquids ) and liquid metals it makes all kinds of sense. Because if Bob Smith is correct ( and the successful use of fiber optic systems, which are amorphous metal based, seems to confirm this ) the issue all along using commonly agreed upon methods of cable making was bandwidth limitations which produce wire generated noise that among other things raises the noise floor and produce phase anomalies that to a greater or lesser extent and obscures the signal . Simply put hard metal based cable assemblies have bandwidth limitations that are reduced when the conductors are doubled. This also explains why amorphous and liquid metal systems are fundamentally superior for broadband signal transmission ( which is what a music signal is...note a lot of standard communication electronics transmission is made to be bandwidth limited to avoid the inevitable cable based noise ) , read their vastly wider bandwidth reduce wire generated noise and allow broad-band signal to be transmitted with more articulation which allows one to hear more of the sound-stage, the micro-detail, the slam etc etc.
|
For what its worth have used our cables with Red Dragon amps and had no trouble. |
@
celander
Confirmed....with the caveat that the Red Dragon is a very well designed amp with proper care given to its power supply( please remember that our concerns with this cable technology that were voiced at the very birth of the Schroeder Method was based on our somewhat negative experiences with that technology prior to that point....we had experienced some oscillations during our initial tests and shelved the project. Given the success of this cable geometry since Doug took up its flag we can only speculate that the issue with that initial test was something in the other hardware, and our guess is that it was related to a less than rock solid power supplies. So please, do go ahead and enjoy this breakthrough technology but a bit of caution is just prudent since there is already a history of excess capacitance in speaker cables not being nice to stereo components). |
Yes....and this change really improves on the first splitter based model.... |
Goodness gracious, you forgot High Water Sound !? Audio Show Rule #1, always visit Jeff, the sound will be fabulous and the tune-age exquisite. |
