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....
I’m not sure the GCII is burned in yet..and, importantly... do not burn it in with any form of burn in hardware. Do. not.
It takes a good 100 hrs to burn in. Burn it in via listening at line levels.
We do indeed have regular GC Ultra RCA cables, yes.
Advertising costs on the audiogon forum ----regardless if the item sells or not.
So ....we simply do not list all of the seven different versions of RCA cables we sell, the two new Balanced cables, the digital cables (AES & RCA), nor the two speaker cables.
shkong78, you are encountering the questions that happen when you upgrade and mix cables; some of the results may sound superior with a part of your collection, and some results may sound relatively inferior. I say "relatively�" because the result is far better than previously with one interconnect. We tend to get increasingly picky, even with fantastic improvements in the system. I know that even when the rig gets an amazing improvement, my ability to nit-pick details if I wish is almost unlimited. :)
I would presume that as is the case with most cable brands, when a person moves up the line in a product the performance will improve. Whether the precise detail of sound quality you wish for will materialize given any particular interconnect, no one can say. It is possible that pairing two of the GC2 or two Kronon would be better than any mixed set. There is no way to know, and no way to predict accurately. One simply must conduct comparisons to know.
One can always pm Teo_Audio (Ken) or taras22 (Taras) and inquire about pricing on their products not listed on the market site. I strongly suspect their prices, risk-free audition period and warranty are the same as list previously on the market site. Or just pm them via one of their listed ads on the market site.
shkong78, it's obvious you are taking this very seriously, and you will get very serious results, the kind of results that do not come to casual audiophiles.
dgarretson, No surprise that the connectors make a big difference. It also makes perfect sense that the line-level EQ would be influenced dramatically by the Schroeder Method. To my ear there is not a tonal shift by moving to dual ICs, but instead a deepening, or intensifying of the tonal character, like a deeper shade of a color of paint. Absolutely it sounds far more real. Of course, the tonality would shift with every different pair of Schroeder Method ICs. I do that consistently in my rig.
I made another 2M Schroeder balanced IC, this time using Oyaide Focus 1 XLRs(instead of Bocchino) with a double run of Connex/DH Labs BL-Ag, between AtmaSphere MP-1 preamp output and Merlin BBAM line-level equalizer into modified VSM-MX speakers. This is a clear improvement relative to Neutrik XLRs using a single run of BL-Ag. In additional to the customary audiophile plaudits w/r resolution, warmth, bass extension, et al., there is correction to tone and timbre to die for. Next experiment I need to minimize the variable of the XLR connectors and drill down on the double runs.
Shkhong you will never know until you try, I even tried four different kinds and length of speaker cables, 2 yrs ago it works...they are still connected because they did match my system perfectly...
Has anyone used Teo Audio cables as IC’s between a preamp and class D switching amp? If all of this alleged fear of using the SM assemblies with class D amps due to wide bandwidth signal transfer messing with the class D switching frequencies is valid, then the Teo Audio cable’s having 1GHz+ bandwidth should cause problems with class D amps, too. On the other hand, if class D amps don’t malfunction with Teo Audio IC’s, then it’s likely that SM assemblies won’t cause problems with a class D amp.
then the geometry of cable making is making less sense.
Another way of looking at this is to say the commonly agreed methods of making cable upon is making less sense, that is, the methods that are based on the use of hard metals ( copper, silver, aluminum etc...) However when one looks at methods that use amorphous metals ( semi-liquids ) and liquid metals it makes all kinds of sense. Because if Bob Smith is correct ( and the successful use of fiber optic systems, which are amorphous metal based, seems to confirm this ) the issue all along using commonly agreed upon methods of cable making was bandwidth limitations which produce wire generated noise that among other things raises the noise floor and produce phase anomalies that to a greater or lesser extent and obscures the signal . Simply put hard metal based cable assemblies have bandwidth limitations that are reduced when the conductors are doubled. This also explains why amorphous and liquid metal systems are fundamentally superior for broadband signal transmission ( which is what a music signal is...note a lot of standard communication electronics transmission is made to be bandwidth limited to avoid the inevitable cable based noise ) , read their vastly wider bandwidth reduce wire generated noise and allow broad-band signal to be transmitted with more articulation which allows one to hear more of the sound-stage, the micro-detail, the slam etc etc.
Doug I tried Teo GC and Audience au24 ic , from dac teac 301 with vol control, to my Norh le amp monos, using Elac B6 speakers, this combo did match well, the sound stage open up, the music is so effortless.....
shkong78, I am not surprised at your conclusion that it is better than 15 brands and 40 years of trials. Congratulations on trying it! You are demonstrating that Schroeder Method works not simply because of doubling a single brand of cables, but because of the advantage of using parallel interconnects, regardless of the brand/model. It seems to be a sensible tentative conclusion, but will bear further exploration by myself and others. That is valuable information.
Never doubt it can get better. You are not at the pinnacle of your system's capacity. There are always means to improve an audio system, regardless of the pedigree and perceived quality of sound.
You will likely end up with several combinations, and you may like a couple of them equally well. Then you have a nice alternative whenever you wish. :)
I received Zenwave D4 trial cable with courtesy of Dave today.
With combination of Zenwave D4 and Crystal Cable using Y splitter, it sound so detailed, focused with natural dynamics, it is the best interconnect that I had tried in my 40 years of audio history.
Eva Cassidy sounds spooky as if she is just in front of you.
I had gone through more than 15 famous brands of cables.
Of course, with mixture of two different IC, I can not tell the contribution of each cables
But as long as it sound good , I do not care.
Next Monday, I expect to get Teo Audio GCII
I doubt Teo can be better than this combination.
I can also try combination of Teo and Crystral Cable.
I'm wondering what you mean. Are you simply suggesting use of Y cables
for XLR applications versus splitters? That has already been done, and I
have reported on it.
I was thinking of dual input connections... Another thing to try would be if running single ended, to put the signal through one cable and the ground through the other, with the shields only connected at the source end.
The additional capacitance of the extra cable seems counter-intuitive, so my musing was looking for a different explanation.
atmasphere, I'm thinking about what you said, "My surmise about what is happening here is that the connection is what is important- it would be interesting to try just running dual connectors into a single cable (sort of the opposite of a Y adapter) and see what happens."
I'm wondering what you mean. Are you simply suggesting use of Y cables for XLR applications versus splitters? That has already been done, and I have reported on it. I have been using a few different brands of "reducing" Y cable for XLR in order to do Schroeder Method with them. There is a very noticeable difference in sound quality between the Y cables, as there is between splitters and Y cables. The highest quality Y cable I have used to date for splitting and then reducing XLR interconnects is from Audio Sensibility. I just finished a brief review of them which should be published soon.
maplegrovemusic, Schroeder Method allows for a limitless number of separate interconnects conjoined. I have not tried a triple. Theoretically� one might cobble together piggy-backed splitters or Y cables; I'm not suggesting you do this. A reminder that this is a do at your own risk activity.
celander, no, you are not missing anything. You said, "But I’m less certain that a SM assembly having a mixed set of IC’s would be terribly revealing as to which IC was responsible for the effect in SQ. " It won't. He's just having fun. Mixing cables is fun because the results are fairly unpredictable, but it does not allow for an efficient way to propel the system toward a given set of sound attributes.
Tonight I am putting in a different set of double ICs, even though the system sounds wonderful. One simply does not know the limits of change with gear on hand until all permutations are tried. I just did a comparison once again between using the software volume control on ROON versus the digital volume control of the Exogal Comet. No comparison; the Comet's vol. control quality destroys that of Roon. Anyone using Roon with the software's vol. control is giving up a LOT of sound quality. The only time I would use it was in a config. with a dedicated DAC direct to amp. And, frankly, putting in a dedicated pramp and another set of Interconnects might still be preferable; that's how poor the Roon software volume control is.
So how do you discern which cable is responsible for the perceived SQ in the Schroeder Method? It seems as though you are changing two variables at once. In one case, you have only one cable total in the splitter configuration. In the other case, you have two different cables in a parallel configuration.
It seems that the Schroeder Method might exaggerate or reveal the SQ differences between IC’s when two different sets of IC’s are used, such as 2 Teo Audio IC’s in a first SM assembly compared to 2 Audioquest IC’s in a second SM assembly. But I’m less certain that a SM assembly having a mixed set of IC’s would be terribly revealing as to which IC was responsible for the effect in SQ.
atmasphere....that’s interesting. I have all Ayre balanced, and am using Doug’s cables and I hear a definite difference....not questioning you, just my 2 cents.
OK- I tried this in three applications. The phono cartridge is a balanced source and low impedance. I used the Atma-Sphere MP-1, which supports AES48. At the input of the preamp, this isn't a big deal but at the output it is. More of that coming up. The phono input didn't seem to make any difference with an additional cable in parallel. BTW this would have cut the resonant frequency of the cartridge and cables in half (but that resonance is well into the upper 100sKHz with dual cables). In the CD player however the difference was an immediate improvement. The CDP is single-ended. On the output of the preamp I could not make out any difference. The connection to the amps is 30 feet long, but the preamp supports AES48 and can easily drive 100 feet. So the additional capacitance and connection resistance is a non-issue for it.
At present I don't have any balanced gear that does not support the standard so I can't comment about that. My surmise about what is happening here is that the connection is what is important- it would be interesting to try just running dual connectors into a single cable (sort of the opposite of a Y adapter) and see what happens.
I will add that I do not find your result surprising, as you have made an extreme double IC. Schroeder Method seems to be efficacious with all ICs, regardless of quality, but the pedigree of the IC makes a pronounced difference in the rend result. Think of it as leveraging the quality/character of a single IC. I do not find the fundamental characteristics of ICs to skew toward an entirely different set of characteristics when doubled, but rather to be vastly intensified.
I just finished building a pair of Doug S. double balanced ICs using Connex/DH-Labs BL-Ag solid silver bulk cable, and compared that to a single run of the same cable. It's not a fair comparison, as I also replaced standard Neutrik connectors with premium Bocchino XLRs with solderless terminations. After a few hours break-in the improvement is spectacular-- detailed, smooth on top, organic mids and LF, and a deep wide soundstage. The application is a 2M balanced run between an Esoteric K-01X and an Atmasphere MP-1 preamp. I'll be curious for Ralph's findings as well.
Atmosphere....kindly post your findings.....I have a balanced system, am
using Doug's system with no Y connectors made by AudioSensibilies, and
have experienced a great improvement from regular XLR's
I will. BTW I'm pretty sure the Aesthetix preamps don't support AES48, so your experience makes sense.
Atmosphere....kindly post your findings.....I have a balanced system, am using Doug's system with no Y connectors made by AudioSensibilies, and have experienced a great improvement from regular XLR's
Right Doug....2 -1 meter pair (phono to preamp, silver disc player to
preamp) and 1- 5 1/2 meter pair from preamp to amp. Still not broken
in.....interesting the 1 cable that is oldest is phono to preamp....
phono sounds WAY better than CD. All balanced XLR cables
I suspect that the equipment used is playing a role. In the case of balanced connections, if the equipment does not support AES48 (the balanced line standard) that you will hear improvements along this line. If the equipment *does* support the standard I would not expect any difference.
Just for fun though, I'll try it in my system. Our preamps have dual outputs so no need for a Y adapter at that end anyway.
As per conversation between Jeff Haagnestad of Exogal and myself he is strongly against doubling the umbilical between the Exogal products. He went into several technical reasons why it would not be good, and so I will not recommend it. I do not typically dismiss manufacturers' recommendations on such things.
I have been using the Comet alone with the Schroeder method ICs into various amps with terrific success. I am currently running sonicTransporter i7 and Signature Rendu SE into Comet and direct to various amps. Superb! (These have been reviewed for Dagogo.com)
david_ten, yes, that would be fascinating, as the combo is superb even without the Schroeder Method. With it, I presume the results could be very disturbing for some extreme equipment manufacturers.
I have used the Exogal Comet alone with Schroeder Method several times, and in fact now it is in a system that has blown out of the water the previous conclusion of what that DAC can do. Some radical results happening lately.
I have not tried doubling the umbilical between the Comet and Ion. Most definitely I would have to talk to Exogal first to see what they thought of it. I like the idea of extreme improvements, but I also like the idea of not blowing up stuff.
Thanks Doug , I think I will have Grannyring - Bill, make me up some with the Dueland wire . Don't worry . I will not be using them with the Exogal ion/comet I have . I take it you have not tried it with your Ion ? Or have you corresponded with the Exogal team about it ? Thanks,mike.
Very nice feedback, especially from our "skeptic's skeptic"! Kudos for trying! Yours is the kind of response that should get people thinking. I presume your friends found it worthwhile. "Vast improvement" is an accurate description, not exaggeration.
Elizabeth, I have changed resistors and caps on the PureAudioProject Trio15 Horn 1 Speaker with nice results, as well as the "internal wiring". So, I'm not surprised that there is a difference in doubling resistors.
maplegrovemusic, if you have not read my article on Schroeder Method at Dagogo.com, and associated discussion, you should. At this time there are certain precautions in place to prevent potential problems with unknowns, i.e. not at this time recommended for class D amps. Do not go blindly into a "do at your own risk" activity. To do XLR Schroeder Method you need standard Y cables to double the cables, then a pair of what I call "reducing Y cables" that are double female to single male. Most that are found commonly are garbage, and sound accordingly. Audio Sensibility (under review) has the normal Y cables for XLR, but has added the reducing Y cables for XLR due to Schroeder Method.
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.
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.
