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.
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
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 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 |
@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 |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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. |
| Post removed |
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. |
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. |
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. |
@Douglas Schroeder 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. |
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. |
@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. |
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. |
