Think post-its. Pretty simple. Adhesive-backed paper, just not super-glue adhesive.
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
Mr m I met Doug 2yrs ago very very nice guy, I do really thank Him telling us about his method, I was benefited on four sets now.With the right matching it’s hard to go back to single ic...Celander your assessment of the starquad double canare ic , it reflects mine, I love this cable a lot, it’s fantastic ic , I do own Teo ultra too.., |
@ mr_m Actually such cables have been made in the past ( TEO Audio made examples of this design several years ago and Bob Smith mentions making a very successful one one in the comments attached to the Dagogo article that introduced the Schroeder Method ). The positive draws of this design are pretty obvious: greater bandwidth, lower inductance and characteristic impedance, but then so are the drawbacks: higher capacitance, and the biggie, instability when faced with high/large complex loads, which btw can become "terminal" with certain designs of power supply. The capacitance issue in most applications simply means added warmth which is ok( or in some applications glare which is not ok ) but in longer lengths can produce problems ( and super long lengths can produce intractable problems....in industrial settings super long runs of standard cable designs can produce capacitance high enough to make relays inoperative, so one can infer that beginning with a design that doubles capacitance will put some limits on effective cable length ). But the instability issue is a different kettle of fish. It can, when the two legs are of a significantly different type, produce the lack of synergy that both jayctoy and tuffy have experienced, it can also produce the type of oscillations that years ago put our experimentation with this design to rest. Btw it was during the first discussion I had with Doug about the viability of using this design that this rather negative experience was brought up and that directly gave rise to the warning/disclaimer that Doug has wisely added to his subsequent discussions about the Schroeder Method ( and good on Doug for being cautious when faced with something that has produced such wild results...I think most people would just charge forward, torpedoes be damned...we certainly did and closely skirted disaster ). So the bottom line with this design is it has some very obvious benefits ( eg lowering the characteristic impedance helps digital signals, greater bandwidth helps all signals, higher capacitance can be a mixed blessing assuming cable lengths are held relatively short ) and some potential problems such as a perceived lack of synergy or a really bad synergy that can escalate into terminal instability. So while experimentation is much fun lets proceed with caution eh. To paraphrase, its all fun and games until someone loses amp or a speaker. |
I’d personally say to go from cd or source, to preamp. This way the loading is stable and assured, instead of impedance and load both shifting every time you change the potentiometer level. And, to be entering into a power amp directly where full gain is always applied........egads! It's like hunting for a uncomplimentary resonance pattern - that blows stuff up. Sooner or later....you'll get there. It's still very much a maybe, but the odds are too high for me.... A recipe for disaster, it could be... pre to power is to be avoided, relatively speaking. A personal choice. But a sensible one. |
I have not advocated mixing brands/models of cables, though I'm sure it would be fascinating to try. I would think the results might be unpredictable, good or bad. All iterations of the Schroeder Method I have done with two identical cables have been successful, extremely positive. That seems to be fairly consistent in trails among interested parties so far. As regards where precisely to place the doubled cables, I have encountered distinctly different reactions, advice and warnings. Some such as Taras of TEO Audio are cautionary, while other designers are dismissive of any real world danger. Two very well know designers who know their stuff, let's say, downplayed the danger of placing Schroeder Method ICs (presuming of identical cables, not mixed) and said there should be no problem. Who should a person believe? It seems there is much more not known than known with certainty, even among those who know theory thoroughly. So, I'm not about to eliminate the "do at your own risk" disclaimer. At the same time, David Belles, who I discussed this with in depth while in the Belles Audio ARIA Preamp and Mono Amp review, was quite comfortable with granting permission to try it with his components. I thank him for his contribution to understanding and the go ahead to try between the ARIA preamp and Mono amps! The result? Splendid! Wonderful! Powerful changes along the same lines as when using integrated preamps to amps. Am I saying it's all good, ok to do this in every pre/amp combo? NO Am I saying it's free and clear, that the ARIA gear is good to go with Schroeder Method for any conceivable combo of ICs? NO I'm saying I had one outstanding result so far between pre/amp. The result was good enough that I won't stop there; I'll be testing it some more. I'm not recommending people ignore the advice to discuss with their manufacturer/designer and simply slap together whatever gear with the doubled ICs. I would rather err on the side of caution than foolishness. But, there's no way I'm letting this lie; it's WAY too powerful to ignore. The one safest connection for Schroeder Method seems to be ahead of preamp. But, I have done many connections now with integrated DACs with preamp function out to amps. So, obviously pre/amp is not blowing up gear, at least not in about 10 instances I have tried. Most recent is between Benchmark DAC3 DX and AHB2 Amps. (NOTE, this is NOT endorsement by Benchmark!). Oh, my, is this an amazing result with the Schroeder Method! Riveting performance way beyond single ICs. |
BTW, David Belles I think would have been Ok with introducing the Schroeder Method discussion into the review of the ARIA components. It was in a word glorious. But, I chose not to detract from the focus on this components. You can bet I'm using Schroeder Method with his gear ongoing in reviews. Incredible sound over single ICs. |
Correction to my post above, which I noticed absentmindedly referred to "integrated preamps". The quote is, "At the same time, David Belles, who I discussed this with in depth while in the Belles Audio ARIA Preamp and Mono Amp review, was quite comfortable with granting permission to try it with his components. I thank him for his contribution to understanding and the go ahead to try between the ARIA preamp and Mono amps! The result? Splendid! Wonderful! Powerful changes along the same lines as when using integrated preamps to amps." I was typing quickly and intended to refer to integrated DACs using Schroeder Method to amps. I suppose one could refer to "integrated preamps" as a preamp with a DAC, but that is not intuitive. |
The valid comparator is the Schroeder, parallelled version (whether by using splitters or constructing an assembly without splitters) versus the single-run counterpart. The Schroeder paralleled version trounces the single-run version every time—and by a fair margin. How the Schroeder paralleled version of an inexpensive IC compares to a more expensive, single-run IC is open to interpretation/analysis by the listener/evaluator. Doug has made numerous comparisons among different configurations from different brand IC’s. Doug might offer his insight on this. The Teo Audio folks (taras22 and teo_audio) have made versions of the Schroeder assemblies without external splitters, which they dub as “Double Double” IC’s for I believe their GC-Jr IC and their Ultra IC. If memory serves well, they might have compared the SQ’s of their new Double Double IC’s against other single-run counterparts of their IC lineup. See the pages 4-5 of the following forum thread: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/new-teo-audio-ics-who-has-them |
Stringreen I own Teo ultra and Teo GC , I used blue jeans LC1 double ic on my tt to preamp with an outstanding result, you never know until you try.ThAt said I own high fidelity cables, Nordost Heimdall Cables, Marigo, Audioquest Diamond, Sterling, But Iam open to try different cables..Iam a big fan of blue jeans cable as well.., |
I believe the Schroeder Method has the potential to be disruptive in several respects, including the scenario stringreen has suggested. That scenario I would not think a suitable template to suggest that any cheap cables in Schroeder Method could best any expensive IC in single configuration. I theorize that when both cables, low end and high end, in their respective sets were configured in Schroeder Method the high end cable's superior performance would reassert itself. Only comparisons would answer the question with some certainty. At the moment I have been focused more on the breadth of applicability rather than comparisons to ascertain relative thresholds of performance between inexpensive ICs and expensive ICs. It may be years before such things are known with a high degree of certainty. Typically one does not have multiple sets of cheap and expensive ICs sitting around ready for such comparisons. At this time I have reason to believe that the Schroeder Method is a case of a rising tide lifting all boats. :) |
Without trying to read through this entire thread is the SM simply building a set of ICs with the internal wiring reflecting two individual ICs with one set of connectors. For example, a twisted pair RCA IC build would simply have two twisted pairs of internal conductors terminated to an individual RCA on each end. Two conductors soldered to the center pin and two conductors soldered to the outer shell. That’s it right? This is disruptive? Seems we are just doubling up the conductors. This has been done and is currently being done. I must be missing something here? Kimber and Canare make ICs with doubled up conductors. The above example is for an unshielded set of ICs using the SM. I prefer the sound of unshielded ICs when possible. For shielded ICs I assume each of the two twisted pairs are individually shielded. |
Just wanted to acknowledge all positives about the doubled IC method. I had an original Monster (not the newer ebay ones) splitter and then bought another identical one from ebay. Scary to turn on the power, but WOW, just tremendous sound improvement, as a supercharger sound improvement!And yes, I've had some discussions with flat earther's whose mantra seems to be "if it can't be measured, it can't be heard". Well, hearing is believing. If having an open mind allows an open set of ears, then bring it on! |
| Post removed |
Well it most certainly is the right tool to put the flat-earthers back on their heels ( at least the ones who claim that cables couldn’t possibly make a difference ). Unfortunately the measurement chapter still has a bone to gnaw on since the measurements the doubling produces does predict a large performance increase. That being said there is something else going on with this concept I feel goes beyond the predictions. So it seems we may win an important battle over the flat-landers but most likely the war will continue, though admittedly on a much different ground but against a weakened foe. |
The HAVE folks make their standard Canare StarQuad RCA-terminated audio IC’s with the braided shield spliced together with the two blue conductors. The specification I asked them to follow for the Dual Canare StarQuad assemblies includes fully-connected shields in parallel with the 4 paralleled blue conductors. So it’s a completely shielded design. I ordered an electrically unshielded version of that cable. (The braided shields are not tied to any conductor in the assembly.). We will see how it sounds. |
celander To shield or not to shield - That is the question. Thank you for pioneering this with the HAVE Star Quad so there is an apples to apples comparison for RCA. As I mentioned, I have some HAVE co-joined, shielded XLR ICs and AES/EBU cable(s) coming. Have successfully used shielded and unshielded XLRs. Prefer shielded AES/EBU. |
Yes shield xlr. When shielding RCA interconnects I think they sound best with the shield connected at one end only, not both ends. However, whether you connect the braided copper shield to one end, both ends, or no ends, I find the shield does impact the sound by darkening it and making it sound slightly more closed in. I also prefer the sound of all natural silk and cotton conductor coverings and outer jackets. I find these natural fibers help the cable sound more natural in tone and overall presentation. I will build my test SM IC set using Duelund 20 gauge stranded copper in oil impregnated cotton conductors with a cotton outer jacket. Many ways to build a great sounding IC. Some very innovative as represented by Taras22 and others. |
My HAVE contact told me that some folks who order standard RCA-terminated audio IC’s using the Canare StarQuad wire sometimes request to have the Shield connected to the ground conductors at one terminus. They didn’t have any explanation for it, as they are a custom house and do as the customer wishes. I’ve heard folks doing this with power cords, where I recall the shield is combined with ground conductor at the plug end (wall input) only, leaving the IEC plug unconnected to the shield. |
| Post removed |
I suspect the dielectric properties of these paralleled IC assemblies might offer the surprisingly unexpected benefits extending beyond the predicted theoretical advantages owing to simply adding additional conductors in a larger twist or wrap. Whether it’s the additional jackets or air in the assemblies, or something else, it’s clear the paralleled assemblies are offering something unique in terms of SQ improvement. |
This Doug Method on My Sony 555es dvd,sacd, To Teac DAC 301 , to Norh Monoblock, using Aq king cobra After 2 weeks , the Holographic sound is much improve using aq adapters, Speakers Diapason Adamantes monitors..,The King cobra double ic is better than my Starquad from Have Inc in my system, in terms of bass , and tonal balance, and impact.,, |
jayctoy, you may be the first person to substantiate an improvement with the splitters in use over a manufactured double IC. That is not surprising to me at all. The quality/characteristics of the cabling is fundamental to the outcome. I would expect that in any given comparison a set of finer ICs, even though using the splitters, could outperform any given cable manufactured according to Schroeder Method. Simply eliminating the splitter would in no way assure that in all circumstances/cables a superior outcome would be achieved. That is one reason I did not bother to order the HAVE Inc. double Interconnects. I have my eyes set on a cable that should be superior. While a doubled IC as per Schroeder Method manufactured should be obviously better than the same with splitters, I am not interested in stopping there, but will push on toward far superior performance. I am always about maximizing performance, not simply improving it incrementally. That being said, I understand completely why persons with a degree of skepticism would not want to invest much to test it out. It's a cost of working out improvements to systems to end up with cables that were proof of concept, but now are leftovers. Most audiophiles are not willing to make such sacrifices, and thus they don't get the improvements. The irony is that the improvements of Schroeder Method are easily on the order of components costing far more, but due to being chintzy and doubt many will not benefit. So be it. :) |
I think we’re losing some of the tree species of this vast forest, in terms of proper comparators. The SM is best analyzed using the same topology and brand of IC. The comparators are the single-run counter parts versus the SM paralleled version, regardless of how the SM is assembled (with or without external splitters). I am not surprised that an AQ King Cobra SM assembly with AQ external splitters might sound better than a manufactured HAVE Dual Canare StarQuad SM assembly without external splitters. Why no surprise? It’s likely that a single-run of the AQ King Cobra IC displays higher SQ than a single-run of the Canare StarQuad IC. All the SM assembly does is improve the SQ for a given single-run IC of a given topology and brand when so configured. But if one one finds a SM assembly with external splitters to be superior to the single-run IC counterparts, then that’s a great discovery without a lot of cost, as Doug points out. But a manufactured SM assembly using the very same IC materials without splitters should be even better. Less parts, simpler assembly design should yield better SQ overall. This is part art and part science. But the part science isn’t exactly rocket science. |
Jayctoy, that’s great! But I am referring to how folks should be comparing assemblies. If one does not want to make a cash outlay for a discrete SM assembly without splitters, then I understand that very well and for a variety of reasons, such as cost, availability of a DIY’er, or a cable manufacturer willing to offer custom services or products. And I do endorse setting up test SM assemblies with identical IC topologies/brands using a set of splitters. It’s inexpensive enough to do. Just be realistic with expectations. A SM assembly with inexpensive single-run IC’s will yield dramatic SQ improvements over the same inexpensive IC’s deployed in a single-run configuration. Will the SM assembly version of an inexpensive IC be a SQ giant killer over a single-run of a more expensive, higher SQ, IC? Maybe so, maybe not. But will the SM assembly version of the inexpensive IC be a SQ giant killer over a SM assembly of the more expensive, higher SQ, IC? Likely not. |