Doug Schroeder Method, Double ic

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

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. 

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!

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. 

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.  :)

Correct, Teo.

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

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!

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.

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. 

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. 

Thanks for the quick reply and info, Doug.

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. 

@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

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.

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.

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.

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! 

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

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

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!

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)

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! 

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?

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

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!

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. 

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

Another gorgeous setup using EE Minimax DAC Supreme direct to Gold Note PA-1175 Amp(s). The Schroeder Method maximizes the benefit of a shortened signal path. 

BTW, a word of caution, this is a setup using a dedicated DAC direct to amp, which is NOT recommended, obviously, unless software attenuation can be used. It is not safe to run a dedicated DAC without volume control into an amp. It must either be an integrated DAC with volume control, or some other combination of attenuation, not signal unattenuated into amp. 

In my case I am using Roon's volume control feature. When I wish I can go into the Settings for Roon on the SONORE Signature Rendu systemOptique and change the volume control to "fixed" for use only when I have an integrated DAC, or a preamp. Wonderful flexibility!  

I will be getting the latest V6 opamps from Burson to try out. That should really juice the performance of the EE Minimax DAC Supreme. 

Tim, I am elated for you! I think you will realize a nice boost from the use of Y cables vs. The splitters, and additional improvement with higher grade wire in Y cables. 

I concur that schoeder Method is a superior upgrade to most other changes. :)

Fascinating thread. It finally motivated me to quit lurking and post something.
I understand Schroeder’s need for a warning on a public forum but I still don’t understand why doubling up on the interconnects (and halving inductance) would cause any kind of system incompatibility or oscillations. To an engineer a perfect wire is just a connection between two points and should have zero resistance, capacitance, and induction. The components act as there is nothing in between. If there is some impedance incompatibility it is the components incompatibility, not the wire between them.
In the real world wires have small amounts of resistance, capacitance, and induction and this can become a problem with longer runs. But I can’t see how a wire with LESS inductance causing a problem. Think of it like this. You have a 10 foot interconnect and it is safe and stable. If you switch to a 1 foot interconnect you will have 1/10th of the inductance. I never heard of anyone blowing up a system by using too short of an interconnect!

Was you experience the huge improvement with SM there is no going back ime.

It is like a major equipment change not a cable change. Can easily tell the difference in blind testing too.

One must try it before condemning it. Made a believer out of me.

toolbox 149, your post is greatly appreciated, because it's another sincere, unbiased assessment of the profound influence of Schroeder Method. You bring up a good point. Skeptics often default to an objection that seems logical, even though it's wrong. When I was first trying double ICs one of the first thoughts I had was, "Will the poor quality connection of a splitter or Y-cable destroy any advantage in doubling the wires?" I know how splitters and Y-cables influence the sound, as I have used them a lot. I typically will avoid them whenever possible. However, in judicious use they can vastly improve a system holistically. 

I was hopeful that the doubling of the cables benefit would vastly outweigh the "drag" on the results due to splitters/Y-cables. I was right. The difference is profoundly superior to a single cable, despite the less than perfect connection. Obviously, this is not ideal. I have had some responses to Schroeder Method condemning it because I used splitters initially. This is not terribly astute. I was looking for proof of concept on the cheap rather than pay for double cables to be made. In addition, splitters and Y-cables allow for recombination of cables, a big bonus when putting it on trial. Overall, imo starting with the marginal cost of splitters or Y-cables as opposed to sourcing a double IC is a more sensible way to proceed if you demand proof of concept and are skeptical. I understand the notion that people don't want to pay money for something about which they are unsure. This is about as cheap as it comes to try an unorthodox method. 

At this point I don't know what the limits might be for sets of double ICs, perhaps no limit. There is still much experimentation being done. Some have tried a triple IC, and I'm told it's marvelous. Lot's of fun for those who, having judged the "do at your own risk" nature of it, and have tried it! To date I know of no negative outcome. It's very good that people with alternative setups are also seeing the benefit immediately. 

I couldn’t help myself. I just had to try one leg, even though I am not ready and had to use some slightly better than generic Y splitters. I played a couple of songs with my current hook up to establish a base for the evening. Secondly, I hooked up just the original IC through the Y splitters and played the same songs. I have to tell you my first thought was this resulted in too much lost quality to make up. Lastly, I then hooked up the second cable, which I had laying around, and was flat out flabergasted by the leap in sound quality. No matching of cables, just a generic Y splitter and yet,,, WOW.
To me this kind of improvement is incredible because I am the polar opposite of the straight wire with gain, purists. My system is a quadraphonic system with equalization, DBX enhancement, additional tube preamps acting as tube buffers, and a dedicated subwoofer chain. So this test involved only one out of twelve interconnects I use in my system. One of the legs between my dac and my preamp.
When I actually get equipment together to do this right I think this is going to be amazing. I may get so carried away that I get a little crazy and try to combine an odd numbered Morrow IC with an even numbered Morrow IC. Damn the warning, full speed ahead!

Thanks,
Tim

Tim, whatever you do, DO NOT COMBINE EVEN AND ODD NUMBERED PRODUCTS! ;)

Just kidding; there are people here who have only done homogenous sets and those who have done mixed sets, as well as mixing brands. The results seem to be uniformly good either way. As regards the run of the two cables, some twist them, some do not. I have tried the Clarity Cable Organic IC with one twist and tried them without the twist, and the difference did not pass my Law of Efficacy. In that case I discerned no difference between twisting them together and not. 

Frankly, imo doing the Schroeder Method typically raises the performance, even with moderately priced cables, beyond the best single IC the company can offer. 

Has anyone here tried this out with Morrow cables? I have Morrow 4 and 5 level interconnects. If so, did you use a second pair of Morrows? I’m wondering if this works or is it the same as moving up to a higher level?
While I’m at it,,,, do you twist your cables together, run them attached to each other but not twisted, or keep them separated?

Thanks,
Tim

piouser, thank you for the additional information. Interesting that you found the SS to have a greater impact. That is the first time I have seen a distinction made between SS and Tube in regard to the degree of change with Schroeder Method. It will be interesting to see whether others have similar or different results in that regard. 

Doug,

Thanks for the compliments. This method is also used on my 2 channel tube system that consists of a pair of Omega HO Alnico towers, feed from a Modwright Sony 5400ES, a Don Sachs 65 watt Kootney amp paired with his SP14 linestage with all the bells and whistles to date.  

And of course 4  - EC 300s in place. 

The DSM added a little more clarity. The cabling had a greater impact with the solid state. Not sure why, but that's my assessment.

piouser, nice setup! Salk makes a very fine speaker; nice taste in speakers! I reviewed Salk several years ago; nice stuff.  

XMC-1
Pioneer Elite DV-79AVi DVD Player, Modwright Oppo 95 SS mods.
Veracity ST fronts
Songtowers ST with the RAAL tweeter for surrounds
Song center with RAAL tweeter
2 - Rythmik F15 subs
Acoustic BBQ RCAs DSM
Duelund 16g speaker wire
3- Equi-Core 300s and 1- Core Power 1200

piouser, congratulations on the success! I think you are the first to comment on the use of Schroeder Method for surround application. I anticipate that it would be as well received/regarded as with stereo. I would guess that the impact for your multimedia experience is quite positive.  Thank you for your feedback!  :) 

Out of curiosity, would you like to share the primary elements of the system in use with Schroeder Method in surround?

Doug,

Just auditioned this method on my multi channel analog side with great success. More clarity and dynamics all around. 

Tuffy, I agree with you. Using Teo Double Double GC Ultra's. No turning back! Would only move up there line.

I've triedthe Schroeder method with a couple of already excellent interconnects. How about two Teo GC Ultra's. The result is really really good. Better yet the Teo Double Double Ultra is even a few notches better for a similar price. I will not touch my interconnects ts u less a Double Double Kronon comes out.