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....
ozzy, I am working with Audio Sensibility to explore Schroeder Method in different permutations, to get a handle on comparative cables, i.e. single vs. Schroeder Method doubled manufactured.
Steve at Audio Sensibility can make up the doubled XLR ICs, even though not on the website. Steve has been testing the Schroeder Method and has been impressed enough to make up cables for me to continue to review and assess. I very much appreciate his involvement, but I am not surprised at all that he is motivated, given the results that happen when doubling interconnects.
Too busy filling orders right now, but can easily do it. It is a very simple build really. I can do XLR or RCA. I could use 16 or 20 gauge. I just built a usb cable using this idea. Interesting and more difficult to do right.
stringreen, excellent that they are operationally compatible. I'll look forward to more descriptions as you hear them more. I found that dynamics were among the characteristics that benefitted from the Schroeder Method. Systems seem more vivid, punchy, lively. I also found that the resolution is much better, consequently extending the soundstage dramatically.
..just installed the new Schroeder balanced cables. ..absolutely no electrical issues....dead quiet..They are made very well...2 cables merge into 1. Clearly, they have to be broken in more. I’ve listened for about an hour.....what jumps out to me are the dynamic contrasts....percussive sounds, etc. I’ll let them settle, and post back.
Hi Doug....just thought all who are reading this blog would be interested in Ayre’s response as to cable length... They told me that they use 10 meters balanced interconnects in their sound room with absolutely no issues at all. (30 feet!)
stringreen, just be sure your equipment is rated to handle an 8 meter run (doubled 4m).
If you are explaining this to a manufacturer, expect there may be mockery. I have found a split approx. 50/50 with manufacturers and designers. Some are very curious and open to helpful discussion, and the other group are derisive and dismissive. It pretty much mirrors the split in the community of hobbyists in regard to such things.
But, derision and dismissive attitude don't determine results. :)
You are making a decision to limit potential damage/fallout, which is how I would proceed as well. If I am going to do experimentation, at least initially I will put up for sacrifice something that is not too expensive. Trust me, it's not easy to place a several thousand dollar amp in a chain with an experimental connection knowing that I may be ponying up serious money for a trial. One way to potentially lessen the fallout should the test go bad was to only hook up one channel. That way if it blew only one channel would be effected and repair costs mitigated, or the unit salvageable versus a write off.
One of the reasons I keep a expensive preamp and amp on hand is to have a "test subject" for whatever is experimental. If an older design which is robust gets taken out, then there is no way I'm going to put a newer design with a potentially less bomb-proof layout to test.
It was a scary moment the first time I did a test of it, not knowing whether I would see a component fail. I still have to calm my nerves when putting up a new rig with it. It's not kid's play when a piece of kit at thousands of dollars is hooked up with an experimental configuration. But, the results were SO profoundly positive that it cannot be ignored, imo. It makes single IC hook up sound paltry, pathetic.
So far, however, with 1m length the Schroeder Method has been very agreeable with all sorts of system connections. Based on the results so far at some point I may be able to call it universally "safe" when enough body of evidence amasses to say that it nearly universally - with appropriate gear - will be safe.
All this caution makes Schroeder Method seem initially like free solo climbing. But, I think more realistically it is akin to climbing with gear, which greatly mitigates risk.
Awaiting (not so patiently) for my cables to arrive from Audio Sensibility. I only ordered 1 pair, but if the DS system works, I’ll get all the cables. The longest one is about 4 meters.....preamp to amp. The others are 1 meter. ..just thinking....My speakers are Vandersteen 5A’s which have high pass (maybe low pass) filters. The preamp is connected to the filters which then go into the seperate amps in each speaker. The filters roll off the lows at a specific rate which goes to the mids/highs section of the speaker, whereas the woofer amps increase the lows at the appropriate level to balance the rest of the speaker....actually it sounds complicated, but it works well. My amp is freed of the task of powering the low end and kind of loafs amplifying the mids/highs. I don’t want anything untoward to happen to my over 100 lb amp, so I’ll first put the new D/S cables into my dedicated headphone amp. If that one blows up, it might be easier to repair. We’ll see how it all goes.
Ozzy, excellent! I'm glad you like the effect. You are using what seem to be very inexpensive XLR Y cables. The change with superior Y cables is noticeable, and I am told that the difference between an assembled set with splitters/Y cables and a manufactured set is profound. Taras from TEO Audio has said the manufactured double set has another quite discernible level of improvement.
I may have posted my results prematurely. The Matrix Cerious Technologies cable do take some time to resettle after being moved and sure enough a few hours later and I am really liking the sound of the dual interconnects.
Ok, I just connected double Cerious Technologies Matrix XLR cables using splitters made from Hosa Technology. They claim to be made using oxygen free copper. I’m not sure how these would compare to the Audio Sensibility but they are a lot cheaper! I have them connected from my PS Direct Stream Dac to my BSG QOL.
So far, everything seems to sound about the same as when I just used the single XLR interconnect. I’m also going to contact Cerious to see if Bob can make some.
It is a do at your own risk activity, as I'm sure you are aware. I have had no complications in about ten systems I have set up so far with both RCA and XLR.
Steve @ Audio Sensibility has made very fine cables for quite a long time now( I use his power cords in my system and have been very happy with their performance ) and his stab at building using the Schroeder Method will most likely be stellar as well. Looking forward to hearing your impressions.
You’re right Doug....no class D......All Ayre - CD/Universal silver disc player, amp, preamp, VPI turntable/3D arm 2nd pivot/Winfield cartridge, Vandersteen 5A speakers. Everything including phono is balanced cable, speakers are bi-wired. Top Wireworld cables at present (who knows what the future brings) Looking forward to hearing what all this jibberjabber is all about :)
stringreen, Steve mentioned your order in an email today. You will be one of the first to get an Audio Sensibility cable with Schroeder Method construction. I will look forward to your impressions.
Mind if I ask what components in your system you will be trying it on? No class D amplification, right?
Doug.....I bought the 1 meter pair from Audio Sensibility....it seems they make a cable that doesn't need the Y connectors but still maintains the Schroeder method. He told me that this cable is better than the double with Y connectors since it eliminates the adapters. When I get the 1 pair back to try out, I'll report back. Thanks
A person can put together a Schroeder Method set of ICs on the cheap, and they should expect lovely results. However, as with all wiring, better cables will provide superior results. All of the testing I have done so far confirms this. So, if cheap splitters/Y cables are used along with inexpensive/low grade ICs, while there will be a surprising improvement, this in no way suggests that the limit has been reached. I suspect there are some stunning results to be found with superior connectors and cables, or alternatively with manufactured superior cables in Schroeder Method.
There is a LOT of room to roam upward in performance, even after the initial jolt that comes from hearing Schroeder Method the first time. :)
Yes, that is correct. You will find that precious few XLR makers have the second version, the double female to single male. I found one online that was cheap, but sounds poor, and another that was marginally better for pro sound applications. Neither are acceptable for my purposes. I spent maybe $75 on them total as a cost of testing. Well worth it to establish that the quality of the Y cables are crucial to achieving the best outcome (when Schroeder Method is used with splitters/Y cables).
I was directed to Audio Sensibility and am now testing XLR splitters/rejoiners as indicated above made by that company; so far, superb results. Audio Blast article pertaining to Audio Sensibility specialized products for Schroeder Method underway.
I currently am using the XLR cables under review in Schroeder Method configuration between the Benchmark DAC3 DX and a pair of Benchmark AHB2 Amplifiers in Mono Mode. Rocket ride, baby!
..just checking......the Y connection for balanced cables in this application needs to be female XLR to double Male, and then double Female to single Male....is that right?
celander, yes, there are differences in spacing between L/R outputs on preamps and amps, but I have yet to use one that cannot accommodate the Audioquest RCA Splitters. The splitters are no wider than the standard RCA cable.
If a person has challenges with splitters and spacing, then try a "y" cable instead, which should alleviate the problem and accomplish a similar, though not identical outcome.
Different preamps (and sources) have varying degrees of distance that separates L/R channel connections. The Monster-styled, solid Y-splitters provide the most challenging connections, whereas the AQ-styled, extended-tailed Y-splitters providing a bit more space. The plurality of paralleled IC pairs can be dressed by applying a loose twist to each pairing (or using Velcro cable ties as needed).
aolmrd1241, yes it is a most interesting thread, especially when the result is heard! The Schroeder Method became VERY interesting when it worked superbly well the first time I tried it! It continues to gather momentum among those who are trying it. (Please note all the caveats and warnings with certain systems). You would do well to refer to my original article at Dagogo.com; I believe it is linked here in this thread.
In regards to a preamp having no room, I have yet to find a component where I could not affix the Audioquest splitters for the purposes of the Schroeder Method. I may have to orient them differently, i.e. with the cables approaching the post from the side or top, but I can get it done. I could care less if cables are protruding above the component, as the sonic result is what matters. And when this result is heard one quickly forgets about the issue of position of cables.
Once the potential of Schroeder Method is learned, the initial proper comparison between an identical single versus a double IC becomes expected. The real excitement is comparison beyond, to find the relative strength of the Method in building systems. For instance, I would expect there to be many instances of an IC costing $100 when doubled to outperform a single IC of the same, or other, brand costing $500. If the Schroeder Method was not so effective I would not speculate such, but the result is obviously powerful and begs the question whether it can yield extreme performance with more affordable ICs.
Obviously, that in no way makes the lower line IC a better cable; it's the method that determines the outcome. I would expect that audiophiles who do comparisons between lower line doubled ICs and higher line single ICs will conclude the lower line IC doubled to outperform the higher line single in the majority of cases, i.e. 60% or higher. Even if the performance was seen as comparable, the cost saving would be considerable and the method meritorious. Time will tell if I am correct in this.
Once an audiophile knows how the Schroeder Method is efficacious, I suspect that it won't be long before marching up the ladder in terms of the line of ICs to employ it. This is one reason why splitters are commendable, at least initially until a final determination is made as to what the "last" doubled IC will be.
Interesting thread... How are you all getting the AQ splitters to fit two pair of cables into the preamp inputs with space constraints on the rear panel between left/right connectors? Seems it would be to close for comfort.
Celander this is my experience single Cerious Tech ic vs KC in SM method, I prefer the KC SM method , on my Teac 301 dac to my Norh monos.On vynil from TT to phono preamp going to my viva 300b integrated the starquad is better than KC on SM method music is flesh out more...
The Teo Audio guys have the goods on a lot of these metrics in terms of SQ comparisons of their single-run IC’s versus their corresponding SM, Double-Double counterpart IC assemblies. A “SQ truth table” of their products would be worth seeing.
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.
Celander the KC I heard it’s the equal of the old model phyton aq $500 , truly good ic...The 4ft starquad $175 it has his musical chAracter as well..can’t go wrong with the starquad...
Celander the starquad is also excellent especially on turn table to phono preamp, on the same set up the starquad it has more dynamic , fast , vocal is with fresh tone. ...
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, 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. :)
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.,,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
