jayctoy, I will look forward to hearing about the results.
Doug Schroeder Method, Double ic
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....
582 responses Add your response
Four different amplifiers, class AAA, class A, class A/B have been used successfully in my systems with Schroeder Method. Avoiding class D as per warnings about potential amp instability with Schroeder Method. However, it would be interesting to test it with a cheap class D, perhaps a $100 amp if one can be found. The initial concern about suitability of the Method for use between pre/amp has been at least partially addressed. However, until such time as the Schroeder Method is fully vetted and the parameters of use fleshed out this is a do at your own risk activity. See manufacturers if you have concerns about suitability for your gear. |
in_shore, please discuss the Schroeder Method with equipment manufacturers prior to trying. Responses may range from horror to curiosity, from an abject rejection of it as though it could harm the gear, to confidence that the gear will be unaffected. Also, this is a do at your own risk method. Very likely the Kronon doubled would handily outperform whatever typically configured IC in XLR you would use. The only way to perhaps best it the RCA with Schroeder Method, imo, would be to apply the Schroeder Method to the XLR. But, as I have found in the past, any given RCA cable can best any given XLR cable of a different brand, and vice versa. One simply has to try the configurations to know for sure. You may not be able to know with certainty that you have the best configuration, but you should be able to make a significant improvement from where you are now, which makes for happiness. |
@almarg I have one of those MIT Digital Interface cables having a box attached. Too scared to even try using it in this method. https://photos.app.goo.gl/eERaKiEvNJZvyids8 |
For instance, a 1m Schroeder Method setup has a source seeing an impedance like a 2m cable. Obviously the longer the interconnect the more potential for an impedance problem for a source’s output. Doug, yes, I certainly agree with the second sentence, but the first sentence isn’t quite correct. Doubling a cable in the manner you’ve defined (i.e., two identical cables connected in parallel) will double the capacitance, while cutting inductance, resistance, and "characteristic impedance" approximately in half. In contrast, doubling the length of a single cable will double capacitance, inductance, and resistance, and leave characteristic impedance unchanged. Regarding your wise cautions about the slight possibility of equipment damage, the one concern I would cite in particular would be in the case of speaker cables, if the particular cables have high capacitance per unit length and/or if their length is especially long. The resulting heavy capacitive load could cause some amplifiers, especially solid state amps, to oscillate. I would be very surprised, though, if oscillations were to result from the doubling of an interconnect cable connecting a preamp to an amp. Also, I have no way to predict what might result from doubling interconnects or speaker cables which incorporate a "network box," such as MIT and Transparent cables, because I’ve never seen a technical definition of what is in those boxes. Regarding the possibility of adverse sonic effects that might result from doubling a cable, as opposed to the possibility of damage, I would cite the following situations as being susceptible: (1) The situation I referred to above, involving speaker cables that have high capacitance per unit length and/or are especially long. The resulting increase in capacitance might adversely affect the sonics of an amplifier while not being severe enough to cause an oscillation. (2) All digital interconnect cables. As I stated earlier in the thread I recommend against doubling cables conducting digital signals, regardless of how pleasing the results may seem to be, because the resulting mismatch of the cable’s characteristic impedance with the impedances of the components being connected amounts to introduction of a known and explainable design flaw into the system. (3) Line-level analog interconnect cables that are especially long and/or have high capacitance per unit length **and** are driven by a component having high output impedance. That combination of circumstances may introduce rolloff and/or undesirable phase shifts in the upper treble region. This possibility applies to the outputs of some DACs, as you stated, as well as to the outputs of some other source components and some preamps. (4) Phono cables used with moving magnet or high output moving coil cartridges, unless the cartridge manufacturer recommends a particularly high capacitive load (for example, 400 or 500 pf) for the particular cartridge. Regards, -- Al |
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 |
For those new to the thread/discussion of the Schroeder Method I will add to celander's informative post that consideration must be given to the halving of the impedance of the cables. Previously discussion in my original article as well as in threads has pointed out that some components, i.e. DACs which have output directly from the DAC chip, may not be able to drive cables with lower impedance. I have only used 1m length and colander has used 2 foot length. As usual, consulting with your manufacturer about such things as length of the interconnects and typical impedance is important. For instance, a 1m Schroeder Method setup has a source seeing an impedance like a 2m cable. Obviously the longer the interconnect the more potential for an impedance problem for a source's output. Perhaps I am not stating this as elegantly as I could; some here such as Al could confirm or clarify my description. |
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. |
mmcentyre, thanks for the feedback! I had not heard of the Schroeder Being tried with Duelund ICs adds to the body of knowledge of successful implementation. I have not heard yet of any instance where the result was not deemed a success by the person trying it. Granted, it is early on, but early results are showing great potential for it being a nearly universal aid to improving sound substantially. It's the "never knew it was available," aspect that is so intriguing. We tend to think we have achieved ultimate performance after a few adjustments, and the truth is we are still quite far from it. It can be difficult to accept that what we have lovingly built can lack in performance. After doing so many improvements to systems I have concluded the range of improvements for audio systems is practically endless. |
After reading this thread (and the one regarding Teo Audio), I purchased the Audioquest RCA splitters and an extra set of Duelund .5 meter interconnects. With about 75 hours on everything, I'd say vocals are even more immediate and haze free. To use a visual analogy, its like taking the screen off a window and you realize there was more clarity waiting to be discovered, but you never knew it was available. It doesn't change tone or turn something bad to good, it just opens it up a bit. Thanks for the advice Douglas. |
I think I had a memory failure; I seem to recall that I requested the XLR splitters be built by Audioquest rather than select them from the website. Sorry for the misdirection. They are Audioquest and I worked with them to select the particular product (wire) used in making the Y cable pairs. They are very high quality and I am most pleased with them. I am not sure whether Audioquest would make "reverse" splitters, i.e. 2 to 1. They do have both 1 to 2 and the 2 to1 cables for RCA. I purchased some of these and plan to utilize them in due time for further testing. |
Highstream, I have some Audioquest XLR splitters (conventional, as sold on their website, not "reverse" splitters). I had to go to a guitar/music center to find the appropriate reverse 2 to 1 XLR splitters. They can also be found on Amazon, but are lower quality. The outer versus inner designation simply refers to the orientation of the two cables used with the splitters on RCA or XLR only, not with Y cables. I do not concern myself with any kind of "twist" when using the Y cables, only with hard splitter devices. With a hard splitter cables can either be kept parallel, or a half "twist" put in them by moving the outer cable to the inner position and vice versa on one end only. If you have any qualms about testing, please consult your equipment manufacturers first. This is a do at your own risk activity. I have not encountered a possibility of using the Schroeder Method to subwoofers, so I cannot advise in regards to that. If DAC to active speakers would prove to be efficacious, my guess is the result would be brilliant. I would not try it unless conferring with the manufacturer. |
What XLR splitters are being used? I have three possibilities, and I’m not sure any of them qualify for even testing: - Oppo 205 with a balanced output (mod) to a Directstream dac - DS dac to ATC active speakers (SCM19A) - alternatively, DS dac RCA out to JL Audio subs (active) and, with an adapter, XLR from the subs to the ATC actives I'm not picturing what "outer" and "inner" mean in referring to the final half twist on each end, since which cable plugs into which splitter lead would depend on how the end plugged into the component. Twisting the latter the other way would seem meaningless. |
Conventional aspects also play in, if you calculate it out, the core waveguide material vs surrounding field space is not a linear equation ---as one adds conductors. WRT to how the physics of complex electrical function deals with it, that is. Sadly, it’s not that simple either... as the rest of the complexities can and does create exceptions to that rule unless the experiment is tightly controlled and delinted well enough. Ye olde "resolution and quality of the answer can only equal the definition and quality of the question" - kinda thing |
If anyone is familiar with Morrow Audio cables, he adds more runs of his special wire to achieve higher resolution, etc., as the price goes up. I have a pair of MA3 with 12 runs of wire and a pair of MA5 with 36 runs of wire. The MA5s are quite a bit better in every category of music and sound. Is this a similar thing to what is being discussed here ? Thx, Enjoy ! MrD. |
A couple thoughts interjected... No one as of yet knows why the Schroeder Method works, least of all me! I claim no pedigree, only curiosity leading to the discovery and implementation. Speculation would be expected until such time as a cable manufacturer would chase down the explanation, if measurable. Yes, I have done it with both RCA and XLR with analogue signals, as well as AES/EBU (XLR) in one setup from transport to DAC. I also have successfully done one RCA setup of Schroeder Method between preamp and amp. NOTE: ALL PREVIOUS WARNINGS AND CAUTIONS APPLY; this is a "do at your own risk activity". It should be avoided with certain amps, as has been forewarned, as well as some DACs that output from the chip (ie. No opamps) etc. Again, check with your equipment mfg. Or designer as regards safety. Imho, the Schroeder Method is a system cost saver, not a money waster. Double the price of the materials and 4 splitters is a gift given the result in every instance I have done. Others who have tried thus far seem to agree. I certainly don't mind a perceptual $10K component upgrade for the cost of one more pair of interconnects, or doubled pair. :) Finally, funny how everyone, even designers find their pet reasons for cable performance. My most consistent benefit in cables across prices and brands has been, aside from conductor material, heavier gauge. Consequently, the idea for the Schroeder Method grew out of many years of pushing heavy gauge cabling in rigs and getting what is to my ears better sound. Ymmv |
@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? |
Ok, I re-read it. I gather the resistance went up, not down. And a warning that amps may not like this. I still see nothing talking about frequency extension or any engineering theories on how changing the electrical values passing the signal would benefit frequency extension. If such a simple concept as increasing mass would increased frequency then more designers would use it. I know they alter mass with speaker cables. Almost every manufacturer charges more for the better speaker cables which all seem to have heavier gauge wire. In my own personal conversations with cable manufacturers they say purity of material spacing from one another as well as shielding, construction insulation etc are the critical component to obtaining optimum sound. I doubt they would all miss added mass and not focus on that if it was relevant. I am in no way saying Schroeder did not obtain positive results. It seems he and others have experimented with a topology and antidotal evidence is showing some benefits in their systems. I am just wondering what the real reason for the results is. Can Improvement of the signal resulting in higher frequencies being reproduce by the amp be done in a more efficient and or cost-effective manner. Doubling up interconnect which are already expensive is pretty cost prohibitive. Especially when you need to do it between a phono, a DAC, a CD a tape machine excetera. That's a whole lot of cable and additional Hydra head behind your gear. |
@kingrex See Bob Smith’s comment at the end of this link: https://www.dagogo.com/audio-blast-schroeder-method-interconnect-placement/ @ozzy See comment by @douglas_schroeder at the end of the above link with respect to his findings with the method using a parallel run of balanced XLR-terminated IC’s. |
Celander, How do you get extra bandwidth. You lowered the resistance with parallel conductors and upped the capacitance and induction. I don't see any reason for the bandwidth to change just because those changed.. I get the DAC and preamp are reacting to the change in current, but I don't see that raising bandwidth. Unless the conclusion was changing those three electrical components resulted in a cleaner signal with less noise allowing a component to operate more efficiently and more readily reproduce higher frequencies. But that is filtering out noise to allow better operating parameters. What is it that you see in changing the induction capacitance and resistance that would make frequency change. |
@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. |
@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. |
| Post removed |
@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. |
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. |
