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....
Oddly what you are doing makes sense to a degree. I know nothing about the interactions of cables and gear. As in why it happens. Only a glossy idea of why it occurs. Ok, I'm uneducated. Now that that is clarified, I have made the following observations. I have connected some interconnects between my DAC and preamp, as well as between my Preamp and amp. One set of interconnects is the Inakustik NF2404 One set is the Genesis by Gary Ko The other is an inexpensive coax interconnect.
Here is what I observed. Between the DAC and the preamp the coax and the Inakustik are hard to tell apart. The Inakustik is better, but not by much. The Genesis is an OMG that is great. The world opens up. I use the Genesis there.
Between the preamp and amp the coax, Inakustik and Genesis are hard to tell apart but they are different. The Genesis is a little thin, so I keep it where it excels. The Inakustik is more fleshed out and full. Very clear and accurate. Pretty neutral but very full. I like that so it stays between the preamp and amp. The coax is just there. Nothing special but pretty darn good for $250. It is not as clear as either the Genesis or Inakustik. There is some haze and cloudiness to it. It is not in use.
The Genesis is designed around 2 wires on the positive and 1 on the negative. Kind of like your doubling up of interconnects. Different but similar. The Inakustik is 2 wires in an air dielectric spread very far apart. About an inch plus. Totally different geometry. I am sure their inductance, reactance and capacitance and radically different. I assume that is why the results based upon where they were used if quite different. If I were to do a review on either the Genesis or Inakustik and I based the finding on one topology alone, I might find either cable inferior. If I used the cable in another area, I might find it heavens sent. Interconnects are tricky business. It's hard to tell if you are going to get the same results as someone else who raved about them. From what you are all saying and the links included say, it seems cables are very system dependent.
Thanks for validating this idea for me. I got in a fight with one vendor over this very issue and feelings were hurt. Now I can't get any more cables at discounted pricing. I'm just another chump having to pay list price. For that brand at least. Owe Well. I really don't need anymore unless I purchase a tape machine. Rex
In the case of analog outputs, some designs drive XLR and RCA outputs from separate output stages (i.e., they individually buffer them), and some don’t.
If they do, obviously connecting both would not cause either of the connections to have an effect on the other. (Aside, that is, from the possibility of introducing a ground loop and its negative effects, assuming the other ends of both cables are connected to a single component).
If the two outputs are not individually buffered, the signal provided to the RCA connector is probably the same signal that is provided to one of the two signal pins on the XLR connector. Connecting them both would do nothing for the other signal on the XLR connector, while resulting in at least a slight imbalance in the impedances of the two signals on the XLR connector, thereby degrading the noise rejection that a balanced interface can provide, at least slightly. Also, depending on the output impedance of that component and on the total of the capacitances of both cables, upper treble rolloff of whichever signal is used by the destination component might occur to some degree, and sharp transients might become more sluggish.
In the case of digital outputs, coaxial S/PDIF and balanced AES/EBU outputs would certainly be individually buffered, since their output impedances have to be different. So connecting both would not accomplish the same thing as doubling a cable, which as I’ve said I don’t recommend anyway for digital cables.
"
Regarding the mention of digital interconnections, one thing that theory can predict with certainty is that doubling a digital cable will result in a substantial mismatch between the characteristic impedance of the cable and the 75 ohm or 110 ohm impedance (for coaxial S/PDIF or balanced AES/EBU, respectively) of the components being connected."
+1 almarg,...well said, thanks for the rest of the message as well.
In short, this method should not be used for any digital connection that expects specific impedance, S/PDIF, AES/EBU, Word-clocking or Master clocking cabling of any kind whether 50-ohm or 75-ohm are all examples.
jayctoy, yes, the effect is cumulative with successive additions. Agreed; the sense of the music being more lifelike, whether a studio or live recording, is powerful. The characteristics of a particular interconnect's properties is intensified and the entire system is changed profoundly. The experience is much more convincing as to recreation of a real event.
Just today I added one more double ic on my vynil set up on my main system, this is my third set , the improvement is so consistent , music comes out effortlessly Live like....
Regarding the mention of digital interconnections, one thing that theory can predict with certainty is that doubling a digital cable will result in a substantial mismatch between the characteristic impedance of the cable and the 75 ohm or 110 ohm impedance (for coaxial S/PDIF or balanced AES/EBU, respectively) of the components being connected.
That in turn can be predicted with certainty to cause or increase signal reflection effects at the high frequencies that are present in digital audio signals, and consequently to degrade waveform quality to some degree, in some manner. Which can certainly be expected to result in sonic differences in many and probably most systems, in part by contributing to timing jitter at the point of D/A conversion. And while those differences might turn out to be to be preferable to some listeners with some systems and some recordings, they would constitute a reduction in how accurately the recordings are being reproduced.
An interesting excerpt from this paper by Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio:
Another interesting thing about audibility of jitter is it’s ability to mask other sibilance in a system. Sometimes, when the jitter is reduced in a system, other component sibilance is now obvious and even more objectionable than the original jitter was. Removing the jitter is the right thing to do however, and then replace the objectionable component. The end result will be much more enjoyable.
Jitter can even be euphonic in nature if it has the right frequency content. Some audiophiles like the effect of even-order harmonics in tubes, and like tubes, jitter distortion can in some systems "smooth" vocals. Again, the right thing to do is reduce the jitter and replace the objectionable components. It is fairly easy to become convinced that reducing jitter is not necessarily a positive step, however this is definitely going down the garden path and will ultimately limit your achievement of audio nirvana.
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.
Doug I have been thinking of puttting this thread, 2weeks ago, and Iam glad You and Tara’s chime in for more clarifications and information..I believe only few are aware about the double ic...
One last point which I do not believe has been emphasized enough is that the longer the interconnects, the lower the characteristic impedance of the cable. Doubling a cable halves the impedance, and I have been avoiding longer cables (i.e. I have only worked with 1m interconnects to date) in doing the Schroeder Method, as I do not wish to encounter a situation where the output of the preamplifier (whether internal to a DAC or dedicated preamp) is not able to drive the amplifier, and potentially incur damage due to the characteristic impedance being too low.
Those with more esoteric designs in DACS, i.e. NOS DACs, and preamps should exercise caution and understand the limitations of their gear, and accept the potential for damage if they proceed. At this point in time caution is still to be exercised as regards types of systems in which this can be done safely.
The idea of parallel transmission lines is as old as the transmission line idea itself. The trick is.... can it be made to work. It depends. On a lot of things.
I will share hear what I just posted in the comments section of my article which is linked above.
I wish to add to the body of knowledge about the Schroeder Method, as well as clarify some misinformation that is forming around it. I have found also in experimentation that it is efficacious in additional applications including a digital connection, an XLR connection, and connection between dedicated preamplifier and amplifier(s). The balanced (XLR) connection was the first to be tried, as a natural extension of the original RCA assembly. Next was a twin XLR assembly acting as AES/EBU output from a transport to DAC.
The final iteration relating to preamplifiers and amplifiers must be prefaced with the necessary warnings that caution should be exercised in regard to some amplifiers which are NOT suitable for using the Schroeder Method (double interconnects) as it may cause them to oscillate, making them unstable and damaging them, and or speakers. Again, as always has been said, this is a DO AT YOUR OWN RISK activity. Please consult your equipment manufacturer if you have questions or concerns about the suitability of this activity.
The final iteration was a dedicated preamp to amp setup which worked as splendidly as all the others. I discussed this further in the soon to be published review of the Belles ARIA Preamplifier and Mono Block Amplifiers.
@rcprince a single cable assembly having 2 IC’s in parallel with single termination connectors at both ends of the assembly provides one solution to your concern of using 2 Y-signal splitters with 2 IC’s (i.e., avoiding adding more connectors to the signal path).
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.
I would like to add , you can’t use xlr ic as well, iam using Teo GC and Teo ultra, on my dac Gumby to preamp..On my other system, I use both Audioquest king cobra for my vynil set up, from tt to phono pre, again good result....
P.S. to my previous post: There's one more possible effect I can think of that doing this may have in some systems. If the two components that are being connected are susceptible to ground loop issues (which might take the form of high frequency noise and/or a reduction of "background blackness," as well as or instead of low frequency hum), the lowered resistance of the ground connection between the components might reduce the severity of that issue to some degree.
To a close approximation doing that will double the cable capacitance that is seen by the component that is driving the cable, and it will cut the resistance and inductance in half. For a line-level interconnect conducting analog signals the most significant of those changes is almost certain to be the doubled capacitance. The resulting sonic difference, if any, will depend on the output impedance of the component driving the cable (especially its impedance at high frequencies), the length of the cable, and the characteristics of the particular cable type. And if there is a difference, it may or may not be for the better, depending on those variables, the sonics of the system as a whole, and listener preference.
While I admit I haven't tried it, adding more connections to the chain seems to me to be asking for signal degradation. Also, I'd rather not double the number of already overpriced interconnects in my system. Please explain what the advantage is supposed to be.
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.
