k4rstar, yes, you will want to speak with the manufacturer in order to see if they are comfortable with the implementation of Schroeder Method. When I was conducting the Border Patrol DAC review Gary Dews was not comfortable with implementing the Schroeder Method with that DAC. Other manufacturers might differ. Someday it may be found that the method is universally benign to other gear, but I'm not at the point of stating it yet.
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
divertitit, it worked extremely well for me when using a DAC with the Redgum Audio Articulata Integrated Amplifier (reviewed for Dagogo.com). Please note that at this time it is still considered a "do at your own risk activity, and if you have concerns you should discuss with your component makers. jayctoy, I do not wish to be rude, but I must clarify; I was not opening up my shootout to the public. I was soliciting interested manufacturers who may want to participate in such a comparison. However, I do know you personally, and you are welcome to visit at some time in the future. :) |
I do not yet have enough brands/examples of RCA or XLR assembled models to do that, but I believe it will happen in due time. I would want no less than four representatives from different companies. Once I knock out a couple reviews I may focus on that. Any company that wanted to be in on the shootout is welcome to contact me. |
grannyring, it is pretty amazing, isn't it? It's hard for me to think of anything in cable-related system building that has brought this kind of impact over the past 30 years. I have used dozens of sets of cables, have built hundreds of rigs, and I've not encountered anything with an impact like this. |
| Post removed |
I double up 16 gauge conductors on my SM ICs and the results are stunning. To me the sheer ease and control of the music hits me first. Then comes the wonderful full bodied and expansive sound resulting from this method of building ICs. I now offer this SM method IC as a regular offering in my line. I do not use sound degrading Y connectors, but wire two individual ICs within one jacket. Best way to do it by a wide margin. Listening right now to a newly built double run for a customer and just love the impact, control, exceptional ease and double portion of meat on the bones body and weight. Thanks Doug! |
I am using an Audio Sensibility SM Impact SE between DAC and preamp and a Canare SM DA 202 AESEBU between CD transport and DAC. I prefer this combination to single runs. I find that the single AESEBU and analog XLR cables sound somewhat anemic in comparison, not as full bodied or dimensional. I have a Canare SM L-4E5C STAR QUAD, but am skittish about using it between a 1200AS amp and the preamp. |
Stringreen5, lovely system, kudos! It appears you are using a single run of ANTICABLES speaker wire. Please read my recent review of ANTICABLES at Dagogo.com for further insight. In brief, I strongly recommend that if someone is captivated by these speaker cables, they should double them up. It's all about AWG, and I point out in my review that the higher AWG (less conductor mass) speaker cables are inferior to same cables with lower AWG. You will get a much better sound quality if you simply obtain a second set and run them parallel to the Vandy's. |
flat4, seeing as how no one else responded to your simple inquiry, though it's been an 18 hour day, I humbly submit that the correct answer is "everything". I haven't found a significant parameter of sound quality that is not enhanced by Schroeder Method. It effects dy�namics, tonality, cleanness/defintiion, soundstage, etc, etc. The elevated sound quality has now become my new norm. I can't imagine ever going back to single IC preferentially. You won't believe your ears how much more sound quality is innately available that has been squandered by single IC. The industry and hobbyists have been using an insipid method for decades. Pretty sad how compromised sound universally has been considered good. At least I now never have to suffer that in the future with most gear. |
routlaw, and... this means what? You're trying it, or not? Maxima95, not much feedback on class D. Only TEO Audio has reported use with Red Dragon S500 Amps. I have gotten very conflicting information in regards to using Schroeder Method with Class D. Everything from it'll blow them up, to it won't hurt them at all. |
@ douglas_schroeder Interesting regarding your use with the Hosa XLR's. It surprises me given they apparently use high purity copper and the actual connectors look like Neutrik brand. Oh well bad call on my part. The cost really starts ramping up with Audio Sensibility's system unfortunately. It appears Pangea has a modestly priced set of connectors (RCA) to implement parallel runs, as well as their own interconnects. I don't have any experience with their audio cables but do have one of their power chords which seems fine. Having owned and bought into hideously expensive cables in the past to the point of embarrasment its not likely I would ever repeat. At one point in my audio-foolish behavior I had more money sunk into cables than most people have in their entire two channel systems reading this thread. Never again. Since those days I have made dozens of interconnects (not scientifically based) of my own design, all of them outperforming expensive cables. At some point along the way it finally sunk in that the vast majority of cables are nothing more than tone controls, and people use them to make up for some other anomaly (sound defect) in their systems. How else can you explain the vast amount of used cables on the market for sale on places like Audiogon. Regarding the science of cables, if left up to me all cable manufacturers would be required to not only test and measure all of the necessary parameters but to also publish those specs in conjunction with their wild ads and claims. Perhaps many of you are aware of the extreme extent that Belden went into while developing their Iconoclast Cables. Its doubtful any other company has put so much science, technology and research into their cables. I don't have any experience with them directly, but have read all of the white papers and data that went into these cables. This is not to say they couldn't be improved by parallel runs however. While not cheap, they also are far from being anywhere near the most expensive cables on the market either. Bob Smiths comments in your original article kept to the science which is important while trying to explain why there is such a difference in parallel runs. I found this appealing and compelling. |
beanstalks, welcome; I see you are new to the site, at least in terms of participating in discussions. Thank you for what appears to be very positive, unbiased feedback in regards to Schroeder Method. I couldn't remember the details of your first post, so I returned to it; here it is in its entirety to refresh everyone's memory: "Hello everyone. Tried the basic Schroeder method 3 weeks ago but did not post then because I am the skeptics skeptic. I removed and replaced the cables 3 times because I disbelieved my own ears. I finally invited 3 audiophile friends and did a "blind" test. They were shocked to put it mildly. All three have read this thread as Grannyring surmised and all three doubled up on ICs to pre amp. Since I am bi amping Hi's and Lows thru a Marchand crossover I am trying to solve the mechanics of doing a "Schroeder" to each amp. Thanks Doug--such a vast improvement to an old school system. PS. I am using a TBI sub amp that is class D but only running that off a pre amp with a single rca." I hope that our skeptics over on the other thread, "The Science of Cables" see this. As a former cable skeptic I know it takes overwhelming evidence to consider that you just might be wrong. The typical reaction is to argue, argue, argue and rage against the perceived foolishness, ignorance, etc. rather than humbling one's self to simply question the absolute confidence. As important as your response is in general, and it's very positive, the sentence that really catches my eye is this one: "Oh, blew my power supply in my Marchand crossover so SM can be extended rather directly to amps." What precisely are you saying in that sentence? By "blew" your PS are you saying you dumped it, or that it died and you are attempting a work around? It sounds like your Marchand died, and you tried going direct to amp with the Schroeder Method. If so, then you are going direct from preamp to amps without the Marchand? I would not be surprised if that resulted in a far cleaner, more captivating result. I have not found Pro-oriented and lower cost crossovers to be good for audio systems holistically. I also have not found active crossovers to inherently outperform traditional pre/amp setups. So much depends upon the gear used and the cabling - especially the cabling, now that Schroeder Method has arrived. The beauty of a simple system with double IC is potentially breathtaking. The only comparison that comes readily to mind is when the Hubble Space telescope was upgraded and refocused. The depth of field was immediately noticeable and so gratifying. The same thing has happened with double IC in audio systems, the resolution is fantastic, and confirms my assertion that there is no such thing as too much definition/detail in an audio system. With increase in resolution/definition/detail comes a much superior experience. The depth of sound field, and the attendant retrieval of micro-detail is exhilarating. I feel so much more immersed, overwhelmed in the senses than previously. Never knew stereo could be this good. I would like for you to discuss the physical system change more thoroughly and the sound that you are experiencing. |
After several weeks of listening to SM double ICs from cdp to pre amp I have replaced the Kimber KCAG with 2 sets of Mark Levinson Red Rose silver custom ICs. I like pure Litz construction especially using the Schroeder concept--new wire has many strands of pure silver Litz. Very, very positive initial results over the Kimber. Will age for a week or two--let this board know after. Oh, blew my power supply in my Marchand crossover so SM can be extended rather directly to amps. I am a 15 foot pair short so I will let you know. |
Folks should know there is an extensive discussion of the SM of interconnect placement in posts made on the “The Science of Cables” forum thread. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-science-of-cables |
Perhaps I should qualify my description of the poorer XLR connectors; I said that they were lacking in frequency extension. That may not be technically correct, as it would have to be measured. I would have been more accurate to describe it as lacking in dynamic impact, especially in the bass region. I wish to be accurate in my descriptions so as to not disqualify myself as reporting on the comparisons. |
routlaw, yes, I would presume that some companies, perhaps most who would implement Schroeder Method would want a bit cleaner product, and in so doing put both cables into one sheath. But, then again, there's no going back, no switching up when you commit to that. There are two very appealing scenarios; a manufactured, all in one, and a separate, exchangeable setup. It all means lots of fun for the audiophile! I'm not sure that you saw my comments on use of four different level/brand of Y-cables for XLR, but the Hosa was I believe my first one that I bought just to get the job done. It is awful, horrid sound quality. I will never use it again. It will pass a signal, but the sound will be degraded compared to a fine Y-cable like the Audio Sensibility. It's hilarious; the Hosa was middle of the pack in a best of Pro XLR cables comparison. If this is what audiophiles are using, they are RUINING their system's sound. The Pig Hog brand was nearly as awful. It's built very tough, so I'm sure that Pros think it's gotta be good, but it was poor in performance. The Audioquest custom was better and the Audio Sensibility is superb, both XLR and RCA. The only way I would use the Hosa and Pig Hog is under duress, only if I had no other choice. They are awful, thin, lacking in frequency extension and finesse. Evidence that pro oriented gear can be dismal. |
Hi Doug, Well the DIY approach is certainly one option but you have obviously proven other ways too. Using the approach I previously described the only real difference (that I can think of) from an engineering and scientific stand point is the two sets of conductors share the same shield, assuming a shield is even implemented. If not, then less capacitance anyway. The two sets of conductors also are considerably closer to one another and that geometry "might" have some effect either for better or worse. However one great advantage of twisted pair wires especially when using the cross connection scheme is the effect of common mode noise rejection which could eliminate the need for any other shielding to start with, not to mention that twisted pair wire to some degree provides some shielding as a side affect. Allow me to digress for a moment. I am not an EE, but have just enough knowledge to get into trouble from time to time with this hobby. IOW's my hypothesis could be all wrong, but am inclined to think it is correct. You mentioned the difficulty in acquiring XLR connectors to implement this but the DIY approach using twisted pair wiring cross connected would nip this in the bud quickly. I was able to find however what looked like some fairly high quality male to female as well as female to male XLR splitters made by Hosa. They seem to be available at a number of different online venues. Hope this helps. |
routlaw, thanks for your well thought out reply. You seem to be advocating a DIY version of Schroeder Method, which certainly can be done. I was shooting for proof of concept when I used splitters and Y-cables. Also, it’s much less work to assemble them in a moment versus building them with no proof of concept. Ideally the splitters/Y-cables would be optional for variety and potential mixing of cables. A good reason why a person would pursue the assembled version is that if cables were to be mixed, it would be a lot of hassle to build it and then find out that particular combination was not as perfect as another. Assembling them makes it far easier to compare. Manufacturers are now making double ICs per Schroeder Method, and they are meeting with acclaim by users. When I first proposed the idea to cable manufacturers and other designers one of the caveats was concern about use with class D amps in particular. I was simply covering my ass, so to speak, by putting the caveat out there. The concern may be dispensed with eventually, but I was not going to stick my neck out and say, "Hey, everyone! Try this!" and then potentially have someone report a bad outcome. I’m trying to be sensible while exploratory. BTW, several other designers have said that there should be no problem. There has not been perfect consistency in feedback by the manufacturers and designers who considered it theoretically, so imo caution is not a bad thing. But, I do not know of an instance where there has been a bad outcome, i.e. incompatibility. :) |
Very interesting experiment you have going on here Doug. Read through most but not all of this thread as well as the original article posted on Dagogo. Bob Smith's response also made much sense although to have a complete understanding of all he had to say would require another reading or two at least for me. I'm sure some EE on this website will correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't it be easier, much easier in fact to create your own interconnects using two twisted pairs of high quality wire using a cross connected method. By that I mean each pair would have a positive and negative and both positives and both negatives are soldered to respective terminals on the RCA plugs. Shielding if needed could be added as well. To my way of thinking this is a far simpler way of accomplishing what you're doing with a litany of accessories. The exact same method could also be used on XLR plugs as well but with the addition of a third wire be it shielding or otherwise. It is worth noting some cable companies prefer to use twisted pair wire vs coaxial for line level interconnects. Ray Kimber I believe is a big proponent of this implementation. In the past I have built cables like this myself, both RCA and XLR using nothing more than dissected CAT 5 cabling. Granted probably not the best copper available but it made for an inexpensive easy to assemble test and experiment. Now all that out of the way, what I don't understand and surely someone will school me on this is why you think doubling the capacitance on an already low capacitance set of interconnects will create harmful oscillation between pre-amp and amp. I know this is true for wide bandwidth amplifiers where high capacitance speaker cable is used to drive the speakers. Goertz flat wire as well as excessive multiple braided wires come to mind, but only on amps that have high bandwidth. There are numerous cable companies manufacturing interconnects both RCA and XLR with much higher capacitance than we are discussing using any of these experiments and to the best of my knowledge without any harm. I do understand your sense of caution but not entirely sure what translates to the amp/speaker combination also translates to pre-amp to amp or line source to pre-amp. Hopefully this make sense. |
I test and make cables daily. It is what I do. Yes, I test all manner of gauge, dialectic, twist, materials etc.., No, not just once or one combo. It may be possible to find an outlier to my comment and in audio one must always leave the door of possibility open. I also know we all hear differently. My comment is based on my experiences, in general, with ICs. I did not take the time to post all my gauge testing in my post above. Yes, the previous posts are in agreement with your comment about additional conductors being a good thing. This is a point of agreement. This is especially true when done in the DS arrangement. However, if using only one positive and one negative individually insulated wire there is a point when the thicker gauge is no longer a benifit. It actually becomes a sonic negative. I gave one example. |
| Post removed |
ketchup, I would suspect a lot of the benefit is from heavier AWG. There is no point in denying that is a major contributor to the success of Schroeder Method. However, the use of a second distinct ground may also play into the change sonically. The method is so fresh that there are more questions unanswered than answered. While use of a splitter or Y-cable is obviously not advantageous in comparison to a manufactured double cable, the advantage is in potentially mixing ICs of different brand/models to obtain the "flavor" of sound one wishes. Some users have already started to mix and match, and it seems with excellent results. And, as in speaker cabling, within reason if someone makes a lower AWG speaker cable, that, too can be paired, and what will the result be then? It sounds insane, but that was the thought that crossed my mind why I paired two interconnects in the first place. Knowing what doubting speaker cables does for the sound, I wondered what would happen if two ICs were paired, obviously doubling the conductor material. That is the kind of exploration I love in audio. :) |
I am very pleased with the continued success of Schroeder Method (And why wouldn't I be pleased, if I say so myself!) in systems that I am assembling. One terrific outcome is the Small Green Computer sonicTransporter i7 4T AP with the SONORE Signature Rendu SE; Exogal Comet DAC - the Schroeder Method cables employed in this setup are here, between this integrated DAC (NOTE: for this setup you MUST have an integrated DAC with preamp/volume control function!) and they are Clarity Cable Organic XLR using the Audio Sensibility XLR Y-Cables; Benchmark AHB2 Amplifiers in Mono mode; TEO Audio Reference Liquid Speaker Cable doubled up (used precisely parallel) with the LIquid Standard Speaker Cable to the PureAudioProject Trio15 Horn 1 Speakers. Very, Very pleased with the sonicTransporter and Signature Rendu SE combo as source. The Comet and AHB2 is a fabulous combo with Schroeder Method and Clarity Cable Organic IC. These products are capable of so much more than even the manufacturers know. If they have never done double IC they likely do not know the capacity of their wares. This is a stunningly pristine system that has breathtaking sound field depth and nuance. I do not often recommend a complete system, but this is one that an enthusiast could move into a horn hybrid speaker and be assured of a remarkable outcome. Note: I also use the Legacy Audio XTREME XD Subs with this setup, as the open baffle PAP Horn 1 can use a bit of extra LF. I have gotten used to very clean LF at about 16Hz +/-3 dB in reference rigs, so 30 doesn't cut it. YMMV All these items are reviewed by me at dagogo.com, and none of them performed close to the level they are now with Schroeder Method. In comparison systems set up with single IC are significantly compromised - as are all components with single IC typically. As long as the user understands the do at your own risk nature of it, a person who successfully utilizes Schroeder Method is all but assured the sense of hearing an entirely different/upgraded system. |
ketchup. I understood your Q. The only way to evaluate the SM complete assemblies without splitters is to compare them against the same IC’s used with Y-splitters. I did that with the HAVE, Inc. Canare IC’s (separate IC’s with Y-splitters vs SM integrated dual Canare IC assemblies). It goes without much consideration that reducing 12 discrete external connections involving 4 separate connectors to only 4 connections will be a benefit for SQ. |
To clarify, I have not been promoting mixing of the cables involved in Schroeder Method. It has been done a few times by enthusiasts, but I have not done so - yet. I plan on doing so, but I suspect that the results are unpredictable. In my experience when one uses four cables of the same type the expected outcome is a more enhanced, better form of the cable's character. But, mixing the ICs will result in an unpredictable outcome. Thus far it seems the result has always been far superior to a single IC, but random in terms of the change as compared to single ICs. I would have to catalogue the changes heard with particular mixed sets to know how to employ them with purpose. Otherwise it is a for fun activity. |
ketchup, you need to catch up. Lol. Several cable shops (e.g., HAVE, Inc. and Audio Sendibility) and manufacturers (e.g., Teo Audio, Anticables, Acoustic BBQ and a couple others) have made integrated SM assemblies for audio terminations using RCA or XLR connectors, or digital terminations using RCA or AES/EBU connectors. One doesn’t need Y-splitters for those cables. Please see reference to the Teo Audio Double Double IC thread listed on the first page. Actually, it begins roughy on Page 5 of the following thread: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/new-teo-audio-ics-who-has-them?page=5 All of those IC’s are essentially SM assemblies of their single version counterparts. |