Triple runs of jumper cable vanquishes everything else!
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
twoleftears, I see you have the Belles ARIA components; very nice! I wrote them up for Dagogo.com recently. They are a wonderfully sensible and good performing series. They sound even better with Schroeder method between the ARIA pre and the ARIA Monos. Also, do not fail to give them a good power cord. They have a lot more to give in sound quality when set up properly. Dave Belles was the first manufacturer to give me permission to hook up preamp and amp(s) in Schroeder Method, and I will always be thankful to him for that. The result was splendid, and showed that Pre to Amp is a highly efficacious connection for Schroeder Method ICs. That setup was proof of method for pre to amp. |
celander taras22's post re: Red Dragon amps was on 2-3-19 at 1:48 PM "For what its worth have used our cables with Red Dragon amps and had no trouble. " Subsequently, you asked: 2-3-19 9:07 PM "Taras22, have you or Ken tried any of your double double IC assemblies with a class D amp?" douglas_schroder then responded: 2-3-19 9:30 PM "Yes, the Red Dragon is class D; I reviewed it for Dagogo.com and it sounds like they tried the Double Double with it." taras22 did not respond to your question above; doug schroder did, saying that it ' sounds like ' they tried the double double. I did not read this as taras22 saying that he tried the double double with the Red Dragon without issue. |
Well, maybe taras22 should confirm that they tried their Double double assembly with the Red Dragon amps. Frankly, I don’t see how any SM assembly can be problematic for a class D amp if any of Teo Audio cables work with them. Teo Audio claims their fluid liquid metal conductors have a 1GHz+ bandwidth. That easily extends well into and beyond the bandwidth of switching frequencies of a class D amp. |
To remind folks about Canare StarQuad IC’s and Dual Canare StarQuad IC assemblies: These IC’s in their single configuration have 2 conductors per leg (signal and return). So the SM version has 4 conductors per leg running in parallel to the RCA plug terminals. That’s 8 conductor paths total into a single plug. No big deal. |
@
celander
Confirmed....with the caveat that the Red Dragon is a very well designed amp with proper care given to its power supply( please remember that our concerns with this cable technology that were voiced at the very birth of the Schroeder Method was based on our somewhat negative experiences with that technology prior to that point....we had experienced some oscillations during our initial tests and shelved the project. Given the success of this cable geometry since Doug took up its flag we can only speculate that the issue with that initial test was something in the other hardware, and our guess is that it was related to a less than rock solid power supplies. So please, do go ahead and enjoy this breakthrough technology but a bit of caution is just prudent since there is already a history of excess capacitance in speaker cables not being nice to stereo components). |
I am happy to report that the review of the ANTICABLES Reference series products is now published at dagogo.com See also the manufacturer's comments at the end of the article. Pertinent here is the fact that Paul Speltz is now offering ANTICABLES ICs with Schroeder Method design. :) I did a lot of informal testing of Schroeder Method with ANTICABLES, and it was efficacious in every instance - as has been the case with every cable used so far; also used has been TEO Audio, Clarity Cable and Audio Sensibility. |
Thanks for your recommendation. I had not tried Marigo apparition Digital Cable. But Zenwave D4 is clearly one notch above Blackcat Silverstar mk2 and sounds good enough at my system. I will finish cable rolling at this point. I had not changed any major audio components from 2013 to July 2018. For the last 6 months, I had spent more than 15k$ on Line Magnetic 508 SET amp, Jay’s CDT2 transport. used Lyngdorf 2170, lot of cables and tubes. It is time to retire from hardware swap and enjoy the music. It will be hard to beat my current system in musicality. |
I tried the Schroeder Method once with XLR cables acting as AES/EBU between a Musical Fidelity transport and a DAC. It was very good. It certainly did not seem to exhibit any issues due to doubling the IC. The sound quality was holistically superior to a single IC of same brand, even though the Y cables (not Audio Sensibility) were poorer quality. |
As I have double Schroeder Method running currently, I will be swapping their positions to see the effect. Swapping single ICs is efficacious, readily heard in a good rig, so I would expect the same with double IC. shkong78, I thought you had used two sets of Schroeder Method ICs in your rig. Not sure if you swapped out their position, but you may want to consider it. Frankly, you would have to rebuild all the trials you did with double and triple again in the new positions. The results will vary for each one of those. Perhaps you already went through this, but most audiophiles miss this. Whereas most audiophiles are too lazy, or don't see the potential, you would see the potential and likely would have the zeal to try. :) I recommend trying all compatible cables in all positions, even power cords. It's more work, but imo the only way to find the best expression of a system. :) |
I am offering this as a public service announcement: the SM, as described by Doug Schroeder in his original Audio Blast article, only applies to IC’s. Whatever y’all want to do with power cables and speaker cables is up to you. But doubling up those configurations is not the equivalent to the SM for IC’s. |
Refresher: the Schroeder Method (“SM”) of interconnect cabling a system refers to taking 2 similar or dissimilar brands of interconnects and connecting them in parallel. Y-splitters can be used for native interconnects. One can also use manufactured assemblies in which the separate interconnects (typically of the same brand and type of core cabling) are configured in parallel and terminated with the desired connectors (RCA, BNC, XLR or AES/EBU). Douglas Schroeder posted the original article here: https://www.dagogo.com/audio-blast-schroeder-method-interconnect-placement/ The main cable forum thread here is the following: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/doug-schroeder-method-double-ic In that forum thread are 2 further links to Teo_Audio threads that describe possible mode of action behind the method. Those are essential reading as to the underlying principles that really aren’t addressed in the above thread. Commentary at the end of Schroeder’s Audio Blast article cited above also provides insight. |
Has anyone who has tried this first with splitters reterminated the parallel runs so there is only one set of RCAs and no need for splitters? What I mean is that you'll still have double the amount of interconnect cable, but the "normal" amount of RCA connectors. The splitters and all the extra RCAs can't be doing any good. |
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. |
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. 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. |
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 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. :) |
| Post removed |
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. |
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. |
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. :) |
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, 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. |
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. |
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 |