I think this topic deserves its own thread , where use double ic through y adapters , from source to preamp, Can’t connect it from Preamp to Amp...For me the result is huge, I can’t go back to single ic....
Keep in mind that an RCA connector does not have a characteristic impendance of 75-ohms. Use a BNC connector if you want a connector with a true 75-ohm characteristic impedance. Problem is that most home audio transport and DAC separates have RCA connectors as their S/PDIF coaxial connection. The Canare RCA connectors are quite good for use in 75-ohm coax cables, but they are not true 75-ohm connectors (see the Bluejeans Cable article).
Celander my impression to your response , no risk right, if I will try the rca like you have now, it’s my responsibility to take the risk, like Doug said try it at your own risk.....thank you
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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 ).
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:
The 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.
I did connect it to my vpi tt to jolida 9 Mark 2, it’s way much better than my King cobra aq double ic with y adapters, So I confirm the conjoin is the way to go... speed and articulation is as good while I have it on dac to amp..
Update on my starquad double ic canare, it improves more, after four days it’s fleshing out more music..maybe today I will put it on my other system to see if it will match my other system, this cable for the price I paid 4ft $175 shipped is a give away, I don’t believe HAVe inc, has 30 days free audition....
Doug ,the one with splitters blue jeans LC 1double ic did very well on my tt to my preamp, the combo Teo Ultra and GC from my Gumby to preamp is good but I prefer the ultra alone, splitters did slow the system a bit, The ultra alone sounds like double ic to me, is excellent cables with very low noise floor...Anyone who would like to try Doug method at your own risk, I will recommend the conjoined ic, less hassle , it’s way much better in my system....music is being flesh out amazingly good, I can’t imagine a conjoin Teo Jr, how good it will be....
pixelphoto, you're welcome! This is great anecdotal evidence coming in regarding the Schroeder Method. I am told the double cables conjoined versus with splitter are quite a bit better, and this is another instance of it.
Yeah, this is just good 'ol great fun and discovery.
(See my post of 9-25-18, pg 2) Well I was blown away by using cheap RCA splitters and two sets of ic’s constructed of Duelund tin plated copper 20awg wire with Valab-Star-Tellurium Copper Gold Plated RCA connectors from eBay (eBay seller Valab). I do have on order two sets of Monster solid RCA splitters to replace the cheapies but got impatient and combined the two sets of ic’s into one. HOLLY S---! What a quantum leap in performance. The first thing I noticed after installing the ic’s and booting up the system was clarity and purity of sound. It is so clean. Playing the test files I always use was like hearing different files. So much new information to my ears and all for the better. My speakers (Def Tech Mythos STS towers with powered subs) bass have always been impressive but now they really sound, for lack of a better word correct. I’m hearing my music at a whole different level now. What a wonderful improvement. No voodo nor snake oil just some extra wire. Thank you Douglas Schroeder
I did one setup with transport (AES/EBU) to DAC and thought it was quite splendid. That's not to say it would be so in every case, but it was a good start. I simply have too many other permutations to put down before expanding in other directions.
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:
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.
jayctoy, congratulations! Very nice, and motivates me to push into manufactured double interconnect products.
Currently comparing another set of cables' ICs in both RCA and XLR. So far only the RCA tried, but easily passed my Law of Efficacy in regard to Schroeder Method. This setup is from integrated DAC to amps. Both the integrated DAC and amps allow for XLR, so that is next. I anticipate likewise superb results.
This is gaining momentum due to real world applicability. This could become one of the more interesting phenomena to appear in recent years regarding cables.
For those who jump to the end of discussions and do not wish to read previous posts, I repeat the "do at your own risk" nature of the Schroeder Method, and ask that you discuss with your equipment manufacturer. Please do your due diligence.
Celander I almost cancel my order, it took 2 weeks, because Gary told me ,many called in because of flu, wow Iam so glad I did not...it’s worth the wait, ordering one more set.....
Doug the starquad or double ic canare without adapters, is very fast and with explosiveness quality, at times in my systems the adapters affects the speed of my system a bit, but without adapters my system speed is really fast...The sound it resembles the double ic with speed, huge soundstage, more depth, layering is superb, it has more effortless tight bass, this cable is so transparently balance with a fresh tone in it, micro and macro is very good, smooth just right...this just after 10hrs...Vocal is so palpable , Lyn Stanley’s voice is so right and natural on this cable....it’s mind boggling how good Double ic and this cable, I would prefer to audition Teo double ic if I can afford it but I can’t, this starquad is more than enough for me to enjoy the Doug method.....
Doug my double starquad came, out of the box , it sounds amazing, yup it works,I connected it from my Teac dac with vol control , directly to my Norh mono amps...CELANDDER thank you, this cable is very very good...
Taras, good comments; you are dead on target with your observations. Yes, there are times when even with single cable comparisons or power cord comparisons I have thought the same; a person who cannot hear the difference must have hearing deficiency. The only person to hear cable changes in my room and conclude not much had changed did in fact have hearing loss due to being a musician in a rock band. Others, including several hard boiled skeptics, admitted that they did hear the differences. What's interesting is that over time they have publicly defaulted back to their public persona of minimizing cables. Is that two-faced? Yes, of course, but I understand how they have a lot invested in their businesses and want to run things status quo versus upset the apple cart. If they built the business on "measurements", then it's a tough customer sell to upset that.
I have tried to be conservative in describing the effects of the Schroeder Method, so as to not be discounted as not reputable. Persons that know me and my writing are aware that I have a high threshold for what is considered efficacious in system building. The Schroeder Method easily clears that threshold. It is gratifying to see that a growing number of other audiophiles with various systems and cables are finding the same result. That adds to the tentative conclusion that the benefit is universal (When applied properly and to the proper systems).
For decades audiophiles have thought that they had terrific IC connections. Not even close, it seems. It's astounding how much loss was happening between components. It appears no one had a clue how much.
Yes, the innate characteristics of the cables used would dictate the result. It's a simple, powerful formula for vast improvement of an audio system. Even the most extreme systems will benefit.
@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.
Thank you Douglas for the kind words. I should receive some Monster splitters next Tuesday. After listening to those splitters if my RCA connectors have the space for two sets of wire I'll solder up a set of double ic's.
My feelings mirror yours. I am close to trying one of the Teo double double's. I might just go for it and get the Ultra Plus double double soon. I have a health issue I need to look into further before I make my decision.
tuffy72561, no, at this point I have not yet used the double double versions of TEO Audio cables. There has been some discussion between myself and Taras about sometime soon trying them.
I would expect that the performance of the conjoined cables would be superior to that of the same cables with splitters. While splitters degrade the sound significantly, the Schroeder Method is so beneficial that this overwhelms the use of the splitters. But, take the same cables without the splitters; I'm sure that would be a nice advancement. I know that TEO continues to explore this and wants to do so with several models in their line. Taras may wish to comment.
Hi Doug, I met you and Taras at Axpona back in April. I was wondering by chanceif you had heard or tried any of the Teo Audio double double RCA IC's. I have two Teo Ultra's connected with Audioquest Y splitters via your method and the sound is wonderful but I heard the Teo double double runs were a big improvement on the AQ Y splitter version.
pixelphoto, thank you for your comments regarding the Schroeder Method. Your post is important for a few reasons; you are not in dog fights here, but are an occasional poster who is not fighting for ground, so to speak. That may help others see that it's not a matter of who can debate the best as to the legitimacy of it.
Looking at your system, please do NOT take this the wrong way, you have lovely entry level equipment. You are hearing the improvements clearly on equipment that is not SOTA (state of the art). That is important, because it confirms what I have known for many years. One does not need extreme equipment to hear the benefit of cabling changes.
You also have achieved the good result, very clear unequivocal result, with inexpensive ICs. I trust you will hear very distinct differences using a variety of splitters - I do.
You said a very important phrase, "I'm glad I kept an open mind." Yes, you have benefitted for having that openness to try something that likely caused a certain amount of doubt. Congratulations on being an explorer and finding something much better.
Its been years since I last posted here but I would like to share my experiences with using double ic's. For the past four days I have been listening to my audio system with dual ic's per both channels utilizing inexpensive RCA splitters. The two sets of ic's are constructed of Duelund tin plated copper 20awg wire with Valab-Star-Tellurium Copper Gold Plated RCA connectors from eBay (eBay seller Valab). The ic's are connected to my Gustard X-12 DAC to my Yaqin MC-13S Integrated Amp., tubed, modified with Russian PIO caps and better quality pot.
My final impressions are very positive. Listening to files streamed via Tidal and a nude SATA external HD with a Elfidelity power filter the sound/music is all enveloping. The first thing I noticed was the music was more dynamic with more presence and clarity. I listen mainly to classical, jazz, and blues music. The stage for classical music has finally opened up and expanded. There is a more defined space around each instrument front to back. Yep, several blankets have been removed from my system and I'm verrrry happy with it. I'm glad I kept an open mind. My next step is to replace the RCA splitters with solid copper/bronze gold plated ones.
I have a toe tapping audio system with PRAT. I'd say that's quite an accomplishment.
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.
I have known for quite some time that connectors play a role in the outcome of the sound, and usually they are detrimental. I will avoid connectors if possible. However, with the Schroeder Method the use of connectors is necessary (unless cables manufactured according to the Schroeder Method can be obtained, as with TEO Audio and one particular model from HAVE Inc.
The outcome of using the twinned interconnects, even when splitters or Y cables are used, supersedes the standard single interconnect. That has been demonstrated informally 8 or 9 times in my system, and with RCA, XLR, and once with an AES/EBU (XLR) digital connection from transport to DAC.
I am comparing some Y cables now, and upon recommendation from Taras at TEO have sourced some from Audio Sensibility. These are quite good and I aim to write up an article about the XLR and RCA Y cables from Audio Sensibility.
I strongly encourage anyone who wishes to try the Schroeder Method (Please do your due diligence regarding it being a do at your own risk method) to try at least a couple different sets of splitters or Y cables to find optimum performance. The time and relatively little money spent will be rewarded well.
Another stunning result for the Schroeder Method. This time using XLR connections to a class A/B amplifier not previously tested, fed by an integrated DAC. The results are overwhelmingly positive. Though I have tried the amplifiers in all possible conventional permutations with this system, keeping the interconnects the same as a baseline, I have not gotten this caliber of sound quality using single ICs. Simply put, in every instance to date the sound quality when using the Schroeder Method is par excellence.
@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.
I don't get why this is so concerning to folks. This is not the first topology to ever have parallel signal wires. Has anyone else ever used litz wire for their IC's? I think Zenwave's lower cost options use Neotech litz wire. Wouldn't litz wire be an extreme version of what this double-ic method is doing?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
