Doug Schroeder Method, Double ic

Has anyone used the SM...preamp to class d amps without any type of drama? Any input appreciated.

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. 

Doug,if the SM works with all other equipment...why not class d amps? What is inherent in class d that would make it a no go... Thanks!

I have built and sold many of these SM ICs to users of class D amps and not one issue! 

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?

Yes Doug.  I have made quite a few of these for folks and I also use them now.  I like the greater sense of ease and control as well as the improved mid to deep bass foundation and larger stage size in all directions! 

Thanks guys for the reply’s. I would like to try it down the road on my amps,but have been a bit hesitant. Granny,are you saying that you are using the SM now on class d amps? If so,no weird oscillations or other weird gremlins? Would be nice for others to comment on class d listening experiences if the mood so strikes... 8)

I used Grannyrings DSM cables with my Lyngdorf 2170 digital integrated amp. Its not a true class D amp,,,but just thought I would add this to the thread. No issues.

I also used the DSM cables from my Lumin D1 Dac direct into a LTA ZOTL40 Tube Power Amp. No issues using the Lumin app volume control. Sounded amazing!

No issues at all.   Just the opposite......better sounding music! 

I am also using the SM on my connection between the TRL DUDE preamp and the Nuforce Ref 9 V3 SE mono amps (class D) with no issues, but extreme listening pleasure.  I also use the SM on my MW 5400 CD and phono preamp to preamp with very noticeably improved sound in all ways.  The ICs going TO my DUDE are both Teo GC/ GC II combos.  From the DUDE to Ref 9's are JW Reference ICs.  

Bob

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.

With respect to an alleged incompatibility issue between a DS cable and class D amplification, I suspect it only arises as a very rare exception for poorly designed class D amplifiers. The allegation is largely based upon the DS cables passing far more information in an extended frequency bandwidth that messes with the switching frequencies of certain class D amps, at least that is my take-away from numerous threads.
On the other hand, Teo Audio liquid metal fluid cables allegedly have a 1GHz+ frequency bandwidth, and I have heard no compatibility issues with using those cables with a class D amp. So I suspect many of the alleged concerns are unwarranted.

Just my two cents.

I have an all Ayre system that  is differentially balanced...phono to pre, pre to amp, cd to preamp.  I use Doug's  cable type made by Audio Sensibilities.   Better sound than my high priced silver.

@Doug Schroeder,

When you used the Audio Sensibility Impact SE splitters, did they have the directional arrow on the cable going from the single male RCA to the 2 female RCA’s? So that the arrow would be going the wrong direction on the splitters that are connecting to the second component? The sets I have are like this. They sound better used with Audioquest splitters with the AQ splitters being used on the second component and the AS splitters on the first.  When I used the AS splitters going between the same 2 components, the second splitter's direction was going the wrong way.

Just curious,
Bob

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. 

Thanks for the quick reply and info, Doug.

I went back to using my Charney singldriver, coverless, high sensitivity horns. Did blind A/B against my single high end xlr's versus SM xlr's. Picked them out 5 out of 5 times.


There is no going back to single interconnects. 

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. 

douglas_schroeder

... 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 ...

I think it’s great that you did some blind ABX testing and are sharing your results. I don’t think ABX is the gold standard for evaluating audio - indeed, I don’t think there is a gold standard - but it can be a useful tool.

However, I disagree with the notion that a listener passes or fails an ABX test. Such tests are not designed to test a listener, but are designed to test devices, which are called the DUT, "device under test." A listener may be able to hear a distinction between the DUTs, or may not, but that doesn’t tell us anything objective about the listener himself, only whether, under the test protocol, he could distinguish a difference.

To test the listener, engage an audiologist or doctor of audiology. That should produce definitive results, and remove the unnecessary variables that an ABX test would introduce into a listening test.

To test the listener, engage an audiologist or doctor of audiology. That should produce definitive results, and remove the unnecessary variables that an ABX test would introduce into a listening test.

this presupposes that the hearing tests are valid examinations and yes/no arbiters for the idea of evaluating audio equipment via said ears.

This is not even remotely proven or defined. (second layer appeal to authority error!)

Just sayin!

Correct, Teo.

Evaluating and appreciating and being moved by (Visual) art requires far, far, more than good eyesight, verified by an Opthamologist.

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. 

Thanks to Doug S. and this thread I’ve been following for a while, I took the plunge:

Just got a pair of Grannyring’s DSM Duelund BBQ interconnects, fresh-outta the gate, they’re already out-gunning some 3K interconnects (not mentioning brand for sake of internet wars)

Extremely musical, tone galore, dynamics, rich mids, liquid-type details, natural, organic, very pleasing to the ears, just telling like it is!

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. 

First pair’s between pre and amps, I’ll order another pair between dac and pre.

So i am still loving my teo audio DS method interconnects. So here are some equipment combos i have.

Benchmark DAC3-Benchmark AHB-2’s
Speaker X4- AHB-2’S
Mcintosh D1100- AHB-2’s his combo is outstanding!

So grabbed my cheap workshop/gym amps in place of the AHB-2’s

Crown XLI 800 and a class D Crown XLS1502

SM made the Crown amps totally palpable in my main system! Amazing! Oh and no smoke or burning up of the Crown XLS1502 amp! LOL

Ok so where can i get fairly low cost SM XLR's for the workshop system?

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!  

No problem Doug! I figured the Crown XLS1502 was a good class D experiment. As in it was only 300 bucks so if things went wrong no big deal.

The XLI800 has a toroidal in it so wasn't overly concerned. I just like the idea that one could put together a low cost system even incorporating these Crown amps and spend extra bucks on the DSM cables and really elevate it to another level. Of course it does the same with higher end equipment also.

I certainly understand why you use the splitters. I will reach out to Bill and see what a pair of XLR DSM's cost.

Yes I have.  Double runs of 12 gauge Duelund Polycast wire on each of the three runs - Live, Neutral and Ground.  Very nice results. 

'Some SM IC compatibility info to share:

I've tested a pair of SM interconnects without issue with:

• Class D integrated amp - Nuprime IDA-8
• R2R dac with a vintage chip (AD1862) - Mojo Mystique V3

Before trying with the dac, I consulted the owner of Mojo if the double IC's would be an issue.  He said no.  Confirmed.  The above 2 components are in two different systems.

Anyways, I only have about 35 hours on the Acoustic BBQ IC's from @grannyring .  I'll report more after I get to 100 hours.  But so far, I am liking what I am hearing.  Previous cables are Signal Cable Silver Resolutions.

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! 

I think I have another positive review here.


Before the DSM ICs I tried a double run of Duelund 16g wire for my speaker cables with ugly results. This was about a year ago.  The single runs were for two different systems. Now I've purchased 3 sets of DSM ICs and they been in the system 4 months going strong and I like them. So I thought I'd take the 2 sets of speaker cables and make a double run to experiment with the DSM ICs in place. For me it elevated my listening experience another notch. Could it be the combination of DSM ICs with the double run of speaker wire?

I ran a pair from my preamp to a Sunfire Class D amp. No issues at all. I didn't notice much difference though. I just did a pair from HDD/streamer and that produced better results. 

I used the metal F or Y style hard connectors. I wrapped them in electrical tape since they are in close contact at the back of the preamp. Does it matter if they make contact? Did I waste my time wrapping them with electrical tape? 

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. 

Has anyone successfully used SM cables with SET amp(s) and/or transformer/autoformer passive pre(s)? I know there was some concern about both, early on.

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.

I use my SM ICs on The Truth no gain preamp with great results. My customers use SM ICs on SET amps with great results.  No issues at all with SM ICs based on my experiences with customers on all manner of gear. 

I have read most posts on this thread and can confirm that the Doug Schroeder Method works well with my class D amp: Nuprime ST-10 modified by Bob Smith. I also have double DS Method ICs between my DAC, Marantz NA11S1 and my pre-pro, Marantz AV8802. My source is a Melco N1A server.
The DS ICs are Mogami Gold custom made by Pro Audio LA Chris Dwyer, so no splitter or Y-cables. They replaced two sets of Mogami Gold single XLR ICs.
I have been using them for 2 days now and can attest that they do sound better than the single ICs. Is the difference of the magnitude of a component change?  Yes and no. Yes, it's that obvious.  You can definitely say that there is a difference for the better. No, because in my case, the characteristics of my system did not change: the soundstage is wider, the top end is smoother and instruments separation better. So it is sounding righter than before but not different in its fundamentals and it's a good thing because I liked the way it sounded before.
The cost for the two sets of XLR terminated double ICs (1 and 2 meters) was about $175.

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.
 

Hi Doug

I forgot to thank you for your philanthropy as most likely you are not profiting from your advice and findings to our community.  Some people have made a fortune for far less contribution.
I have always used the Mogami ICs with great results and am happy with them and doubly now in their SM form. you are correct as it relates to the information retrieval and dynamics, they have improved also and I expect things to get even better once the cables settle after a couple of hundreds hours. I just wanted to give a quick first impression because the changes were impressive for such minimal configuration differences. Thanks again.

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. 

(Mr.) Doug Schroeder,

Thank you.

grannyring,

I use my SM ICs on The Truth no gain preamp with great results. My customers use SM ICs on SET amps with great results. No issues at all with SM ICs based on my experiences with customers on all manner of gear.

I finally understand what a DSM (Duelund Schroder Method) interconnect is and what it does. Especially from the preamp (The Truth) to the amp (Any Clayton Audio amp).

My question is will it also work from a turntable with female RCA’s out to a phono preamp in? In my setup the phono interconnects HAVE to be shielded. But hey, but I can live with that.

(GRG) - grannyring (gear)...Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.

And to think about 10 or so years ago I thought HT (Home Theater) was the tops in audio gear? Go figure...

Also, does the SM work with speaker wire also? As I use ’single’ Duelund 12GA wire.