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....
Short answer: it works. I managed replacing a very expensive Shunyata Sigma clock cable with two middling BNC cables without ANY loss in SQ. (hint: doubling up on the Shunyata for me was a bridge too far...) So pretty good vindication of the method, I guess. The cables were 30in long
antigrunge2, LOL, yes, I just noticed this when I saw comments in another thread in regard to 10 MHz clock... Too funny! Thanks for the clarification. :)
Your input would be appreciated, because to date I do not know of anyone who has tried Schroeder Method with an external clock!
antigrunge2, I appreciate your feedback here! It’s quite a bit of fun to explore different methods, and I am glad that you took the time to do so.
If by your phrase, "Zodiac’s 10m BNC clock cable", you mean a 10m long run of cable, then I suggest you inquire as to what the capacitance of that cable will be, and should discuss with your manufacturer.
In the Iconoclast by Belden and BAV Power Cord review, just published, Galen Gareis, former product design engineer, pointed out to me that one potential concern exists with the Schroeder Method, a potential for certain cables to when paired have excessive capacitance, i.e. like an unfurled capacitor. This is not a danger for the vast majority of cables, but could theoretically be so for certain flat conductor cables, like foils. I mention this because somewhere there is likely someone with a custom set of foil ICs who might think of doubling them. THAT probably should be avoided. Also, extremely long runs of cable change the impedance, and some esoteric components may not fare well with it. I say this because in all likelihood there are not many/any serious ribbon ICs, because this would also impact the other parameters of L,R,C - and this may be far less than optimum as opposed to more traditional cable types for ICs.
As I have said all along, repeatedly, this is a do at your own risk activity, and if there is any question of the particular cables, length, type, etc. one needs to check with the manufacturer about it.
On a whim I combined A23 ICs with Artisansilvercables pure silver cables via fixed y- adaptors between a Zodiac Platinum DAC and a Wavac EC300b amp. The result was a significant increase in spatial resolution with slightly increased treble. The A23 cables have great resolution with slight treble reticence. The pure silver cables have beautiful colour, especially on strings but with a slight sibilants and strident treble. The combo seems a happy marriage of the virtues while loosing the foibles. I fully endorse the method and will next try it on the Zodiac‘s 10m BNC clock cable
And audio2design, we filed our provisional application well within the prescribed timeframe for securing a valid patent from a non-provisional application claiming priority to that earlier-filed provisional.
jayctoy, I was referring to use of Schroeder Method with SACD. I didn't recall anyone discussing that. Perhaps you did along the way, but I may not have realized it, and have not been curating this thread for a long time. I did recall your endorsement, enjoyment of it. So, it was my wonder at the use of SACD, not a thought that you were just getting into the game. You should find great value in using it with XLR.
If I memember I have used double ic from tt to phono preamp , sacd players to preamps , preamps to amps, tubes and ss. Without any problem on my systems.
Doug before I bought my Marantz Sacd player , Iam using yamaha sacd s1000 , And Marantz 8005 sacd players still do I have 3 systems .iam very familiar how this two players perform in term of how much they dissect info out of the disc, compare to my SA10 they don’t come close in terms of how good this player dissect music.why I thought double ic is needed using xlr, that’s what I mean.Celander mentioned this double ic starquad from HAVE Inc, which I bought , it’s rca , which is excellent, but now I will need xlr double ic, Now I know it’s possible to have SM in xlr .thanks
jayctoy, not sure what you mean by "fleshing out more than an IC can accommodate"? I have found NO limit to what cables can reveal as components and systems are built. Why would you think you know the limits of the system? Your comment doesn't make sense to me. I would guess that if you tried the Schroeder Method you would find a lot more of what can be fleshed out, and that is not even close to the limit. Dozens more changes and improvements can be had with almost any system. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment, but I don't think you have come anywhere near the limits of what a cable can transmit.
Yes, balanced is possible; I have done so many times. I prefer to use my method with either RCA or XLR.
I am not sure if you are the first person here to try it on SACD. Should be interesting. It's "do at your own risk", which I presume you know if you read this thread. But, I have not heard of a single instance to date of any issues/damage, etc. from it. The only method that imo can beat the Schroeder Method is to split the signal and run four channels of amps instead of two, but that's a pricey advantage.
I bought a Marantz sacd sa 10 player , I felt that it’s fleshing out a lot of music more than an ic can accommodate, I have feeling the double will be a good option, I will need a balance configurations, Iam not sure if that’s posible .Right now I have the 4 ft rca double ic , I will try to connect it see what will happen . Doug any input here?
Well then I hope you IP attorney is providing you good advice and/or you are being completely un front with him/her. From what I have read you have provided full and public disclosure for your idea. It is readily evident and documented in these forums. It is "enabling", i.e. you have provided more than sufficient information for someone to replicate what you did.
In most of the world, there is no grace period. If you publicly disclose your idea, that is it, it is prior art (even if your own), and you can't get a patent. In the U.S., there is a 1 year grace period.
Many cables are already multiple parallel cables, so again, difficult to create a defensible patent around the concept. It is your money, which I am sure the patent attorney is quite happy to take. Patent attorneys write patents. You pay extra for patent searches.
I am relying upon the opinion of the IP Attorney i am partnering with for the patent. :)
Adurerca, I have not seen anyone in the audio industry or community warn of capacitance issues at even 1m lengths, even with a pair of Schroeder Method sets in a system. I have used two pair of 2m Schroeder Method ICs in systems on a regular basis, both XLR and RCA.
Imo, longer ICs and shorter Y cables would be better. But, only direct comparison would tell. If Blue Jeans won't make shorter Y cables, get 2 foot ICs from Blue Jeans, and y cables from Audio Sensibility - unless you must have L/R leads so long.
Disclaimer: I have reviewed Audio Sensibility Y Cables for Dagogo.com
The minimum Y is 1’ at Blue Jeans so that means 2’ of Y and in order to minimize capacitance, I ordered 1’ IC’s. So the total length of my cable is 3’. But the split happens at the Neutrik connector so while it is physically part of the Y assembly, it is just 2 cables coming from that connector, if that makes sense.
So you are saying this is not a good configuration. If not, I can still cancel my order.
Are you saying the Y cables are going to be the same length as the ICs, at 1'? That would be a rather odd implementation of the Schroeder Method, with the Y cables the same length as the ICs. In almost every implementation I have done/seen, the ICs are much longer than the Y cables.
Frankly, I'm not sure you will gain great benefit if you end up with two pair of ICs totalling 3'; the Y cables contributing 2', and the ICs themselves at 1' long. I really cannot tell you the outcome of that, as it is fairly the reverse of the intent of the Schroeder Method as implemented. I hope it works, but I would not be surprised if it did not work well. The idea is to maximize the contribution/length of the ICs versus the Y cables.
OR, are you saying the entire doubled IC cable will be 1' long? Then you would have two Y cables at about 6", and the twin ICs at 6".
I have the Benchmark AHB2 and DAC3 and came across this IC method on the Benchmark AHB2 Impressions thread. So I just ordered a set of balanced XLR Y-cables and IC's from Bluejeans Cables, as an experiment. The Y-cables and IC's will all be 1 footers to keep the loom of spaghetti under control. I went from a star quad cable to a lower capacitance Van Damme and immediately noticed a change in the sound that I liked so I am curious to see how the Schroeder Method works in my setup.
vinylshadow, succinctly, no limit; my experience is that Schroeder Method works on both economical and high end cables. Note once again, I am not suggesting open trials of passively networked cables such as MIT. I simply do not know the effects, but will not endorse it without support for the idea.
It does not, in my experience cause cheap cables to leapfrog more expensive ones. Sorry; quality rule still applies. It might even be said that the better/more favored the cable, the more it will benefit from the Method.
I have only officially recommended homogenous sets, but some are using mixed and with good results. Your call.
I use, depending upon application, both Audioquest and Audio Sensibility Y cables. I do not like the degradation I have heard in use of splitters for XLR and RCA cables.
Plugs are all over the place; everyone has a favorite. I assess entire cables, not DIY, so I'm not your authority on naked plugs.
I believe there are several $20-50K rigs out there using the Schroeder Method. I have found no limits on performance enhancements in use of Schroeder Method of IC Placement associated with the quality of the rig.
Doug. Best of luck with your patent! Is there a limit on how high the quality or expense the interconnects used are. In other words, is what makes the S.M. special is that you can use 2 sets of less expensive cables to get the sonics of a very expensive cable? As some pairs of interconnects are over $2000! Shoot, even $5000! I imagine that the best option is to use 2 of the same interconnects, whichever you choose.
I like your idea of using Y cables as it is reversible but if I’m going to try this, I think I might look into a company to solder interconnects into one connector on both ends.
Do you have a recommended RCA plug as some use Keith Eichman’s and some use multi layered gold plated connectors...
Your necessary disclaimer still gets me nervous but do you have a link to any reference system reviews of the S.M.? I’m scouring the interwebs to find them. Thanks.
vinylshadow, I and one other person are seeking a patent; application is submitted and in process. :)
I suggest you buy them from Audio Sensibility, Anticables, or the like. If you read up on my article and follow ups, I strongly suggest initially to use quality Y cables to "build" your own prior to ordering manufactured. The home built are not as good as manufactured, but still substantially better than single. Some have mixed cables in the self-made sets. Again, disclaimer applies at this point.
If you wanted a company to work with your own selection of cable, you would have to make arrangements.
Thanks Doug. Is this a relatively new method as I don’t think I’ve ever read any cable manufacturer offering their interconnects doubled and soldered into a single connector.
Can expensive interconnects be damaged when disassembling the incorporated connectors and then resoldering 2 cables into a single connector? Is there ANY downside to this method?
How does the changeover work. A person buys their preferred interconnects and ships them off to a person to double them up and put the ends in a connector? And if I may ask, if this Double IC truly is the bees knees and would make their cables and thus a reference system sound even better, why haven’t cable manufactures hit the ground running with this method....
vinylshadow, thanks for asking; this is intended as a premium, HiFi activity. I intend it for use on the best systems available. I believe the Method is beneficial for all systems, but in particular I intend it for high end rigs.
I have continued to use my method in a variety of systems with no ill effects, and always very nice improvement in sound quality. Recently, I have been reviewing a premium tube output DAC that responds beautifully to the Schroeder Method of IC Placement.
I have also tried it with yet another set of cables (also under review, and again have success. I have not signed off on use of my method with passively networked cables. I don't much care for them anyway. As prior, until it is demonstrated to be benign to nearly any conceivable system or with particular cables, it is a "do at your own risk" activity. But, again, I have not heard of a single instance of trouble.
I tried it on my jolida phono stage from my music hall going to my art audio preamp it works, no damage was done.i also tried if from my Yamaha sacd s1000 going to my viva integrated 300b it works...Read Doug post on this thread , for safe use, or pm Him.very nice guy.
Bringing this thread back up as I never seen or heard of it before and just read about the S.M. for the first time when i was looking at the Anticables website and it was mentioned.... I am curious as to the systems of posters who are using this method. Reference? Mid fi?
Is there any chance of damaging very expensive components? Can it overload the circuit or the equipment in let’s say a phono stage to the preamp? Thank you.
Doubling up on the wire from amp to speaker made a huge improvement on my system. Perhaps, because the speakers are 4 ohm, but it sounded dramatically better. I was quite certain I wouldn't hear anything, but it was the opposite. TRY IT. :-) Amazing!
douglas_schroeder
Congratulations to those who have tried and found out. :)
I use my SM ICs on The Truth no gain preamp with great results. My customers use SM ICs on SET amps with great results. No issues at all with SM ICs based on my experiences with customers on all manner of gear.
I finally understand what a DSM (Duelund Schroder Method) interconnect is and what it does. Especially from the preamp (The Truth) to the amp (Any Clayton Audio amp).
My question is will it also work from a turntable with female RCA’s out to a phono preamp in? In my setup the phono interconnects HAVE to be shielded. But hey, but I can live with that.
When I revealed Schroeder Method more than a year ago I did not realize the business potential. I did not have perspective in business, nor confidence to seek a patent. Someone who did partnered with me, and now there is a patent application.
My total profit so far from Schroeder Method are two pair of prototype double cables and some Y cables on loan from a cable manufacturer. I spent more on multiple sets of hard splitters and Y-cables for comparison than the cables are worth. What's nice is that even if this pays off for me, the guy with a tight budget can still do a homemade Schroeder Method set of interconnects. It really can be a win/win for everyone. :)
I concur with you whole heartedly that some people have made good money for far less a contribution. I can feel comfortable about Schroeder Method that it's not a rip-off scheme. It's a legit method with obvious results.
I forgot to thank you for your philanthropy as most likely you are not profiting from your advice and findings to our community. Some people have made a fortune for far less contribution. I have always used the Mogami ICs with great results and am happy with them and doubly now in their SM form. you are correct as it relates to the information retrieval and dynamics, they have improved also and I expect things to get even better once the cables settle after a couple of hundreds hours. I just wanted to give a quick first impression because the changes were impressive for such minimal configuration differences. Thanks again.
spenav, a very nice description of the benefits of Schroeder Method in your system; kudos! It is also of benefit to the community as you shared about use with a class D amp, even a modified one. It is also good to demonstrate that it influences XLR as well as RCA. The system I currently am running has two sets as well, one RCA and the other XLR.
Your description is accurate to what I have experienced with use; not a radical remake/skewing of he sonic attributes as if swapping out cables for another brand, but superior in the attributes already enjoyed through increase or a deepening of them. The intensity of the change is that of a component, but without potential to skew the sound away from what is desired. I suggest that you consider also the information retrieval and dynamics. You should have superior definition and better macrodynamics, as well.
Now, if a different brand of ICs were used in Schroeder Method, then as expected the entire presentation would change in ways that may be more or less enjoyable in terms of clarity, distribution of intensity along the frequency spectrum (i.e. more bass and less treble presence, or vice versa), etc.
Going with the affordable Mogami cables that is a sensible, efficacious change to a system. It also confirms my conclusion that Schroeder Method is efficacious with all ICs, regardless of cost. That does not mean I think that an inexpensive IC in Schroeder Method will typically outperform a higher end double IC, but it supports the fact that audiophiles along the cost/performance spectrum can benefit.
I have read most posts on this thread and can confirm that the Doug Schroeder Method works well with my class D amp: Nuprime ST-10 modified by Bob Smith. I also have double DS Method ICs between my DAC, Marantz NA11S1 and my pre-pro, Marantz AV8802. My source is a Melco N1A server. The DS ICs are Mogami Gold custom made by Pro Audio LA Chris Dwyer, so no splitter or Y-cables. They replaced two sets of Mogami Gold single XLR ICs. I have been using them for 2 days now and can attest that they do sound better than the single ICs. Is the difference of the magnitude of a component change? Yes and no. Yes, it's that obvious. You can definitely say that there is a difference for the better. No, because in my case, the characteristics of my system did not change: the soundstage is wider, the top end is smoother and instruments separation better. So it is sounding righter than before but not different in its fundamentals and it's a good thing because I liked the way it sounded before. The cost for the two sets of XLR terminated double ICs (1 and 2 meters) was about $175.
I use my SM ICs on The Truth no gain preamp with great results. My customers use SM ICs on SET amps with great results. No issues at all with SM ICs based on my experiences with customers on all manner of gear.
This week I had my first shot at using a set of same brand pre/class D amp. I am running a double Schroeder Method setup, two pairs of double ICs, one set from DAC to pre, and the other from pre to Class D amp. The results are as typical, wonderful! On this particular review set of components I am using RCA for the first pair, and XLR on the second pair. So much more is extracted from the components when Schroeder Method is used.
I am in awe of what is happening with these electronics. I have heard a lot of class D, but never had one impress this much. It's not a high dollar unit, which the masses will cheer. I need to investigate how this is happening more thoroughly. Class D in my use is proving VERY agreeable to Schroeder Method. YMMV and please do your own educating on this topic before trying this "do at your own risk" activity. :)
Also, in my use passive preamp has been of no concern whatsoever. Passives have worked splendidly with the Method.
Has anyone successfully used SM cables with SET amp(s) and/or transformer/autoformer passive pre(s)? I know there was some concern about both, early on.
Thank you very much, piouser and shout1cobra, for your input!
Doubling speaker cables has always been a good way for me to elevate a system's sound. Not sure what happened with the double 16 Ga. you used. I usually try to get the AWG to about 10 for speakers, and that means doubling some substantial cables. I'm not surprised at all that you heard more from doubling speaker cables when using the Schroeder Method. It is much more revealing of such things than standard single IC, imo.
We must have half a dozen class D amps now in use with Schroeder Method, which is great! I'm guessing some others have tried and not discussed publicly, too.
Good job, shoup1cobra, to try an alternative location, as opposed to simply� concluding that there is no efficacy because you didn't hear it in the first trial. I encourage you to get Y cables, as budget hard connectors might be quite lossy for the signal. When I was using hard splitters with some components they were very close together, and I always put a piece of foam or leather between them.
I ran a pair from my preamp to a Sunfire Class D amp. No issues at all. I didn't notice much difference though. I just did a pair from HDD/streamer and that produced better results.
I used the metal F or Y style hard connectors. I wrapped them in electrical tape since they are in close contact at the back of the preamp. Does it matter if they make contact? Did I waste my time wrapping them with electrical tape?
Before the DSM ICs I tried a double run of Duelund 16g wire for my speaker cables with ugly results. This was about a year ago. The single runs were for two different systems. Now I've purchased 3 sets of DSM ICs and they been in the system 4 months going strong and I like them. So I thought I'd take the 2 sets of speaker cables and make a double run to experiment with the DSM ICs in place. For me it elevated my listening experience another notch. Could it be the combination of DSM ICs with the double run of speaker wire?
Some lovely additional input from veroguy; thank you! Your post strikes me as indicating you are a no-nonsense sort of fellow. This is also good input to share about class D use with another brand.
One thing I noticed is that you seem to prefer the all copper Schroeder Method Acoustic BBQ IC to the standard silver/copper Signal Cable IC. That's not surprising to me. I happen to be using a silver/copper mix in my "internal" speaker wiring for the PureAudioProject Trio15 Horn 1, and I like the result. Ironically, this thin stranded wiring is from Radio Shack! I had a spool of it sitting for about, what, 6-7 years since they went defunct and decided to try it on the PAP. Works well, I suspect because of the silver/copper mix. But, I really do need to try a heavy gauge copper cable, maybe 10 AWG to see if that does better. I suspect it would.
The good news regarding class D use is helpful for me, because I was hoping to do comparison between an active X-over rig with six channels of amplification versus a passive X-over setup with two channels (stereo or monos) with tri-wiring. I would like to use all Schroeder Method ICs in that comparison. This would involve the Legacy Audio Whisper DSW Clarity Edition custom speakers that can be switched between both modes. I did the review a while back for Dagogo.com (BTW, one of my conclusions was that I could make either passive or active speaker setup superior depending upon the complexion of the entire system. But, in an apples to apples comparison, i.e. amps, active x-over was superior).
I already have gotten familiarity with the two channel and tri-wiring the Whisper speakers, but was holding back on Schroeder Method with the active x-over and 6 channel of class D setup because of concerns voiced to me about it from industry members. Now, it seems that the momentum is building to conclude that Schroeder Method is benign to Class D. I am still not willing to go promote it as universally benign (erring on the side of caution), but I am encouraged by the feedback!
I've tested a pair of SM interconnects without issue with:
Class D integrated amp - Nuprime IDA-8
R2R dac with a vintage chip (AD1862) - Mojo Mystique V3
Before trying with the dac, I consulted the owner of Mojo if the double IC's would be an issue. He said no. Confirmed. The above 2 components are in two different systems.
Anyways, I only have about 35 hours on the Acoustic BBQ IC's from @grannyring . I'll report more after I get to 100 hours. But so far, I am liking what I am hearing. Previous cables are Signal Cable Silver Resolutions.
No problem Doug! I figured the Crown XLS1502 was a good class D experiment. As in it was only 300 bucks so if things went wrong no big deal.
The XLI800 has a toroidal in it so wasn't overly concerned. I just like the idea that one could put together a low cost system even incorporating these Crown amps and spend extra bucks on the DSM cables and really elevate it to another level. Of course it does the same with higher end equipment also.
I certainly understand why you use the splitters. I will reach out to Bill and see what a pair of XLR DSM's cost.
flat4, thank you for your extended discussion. It's nice to have further confirmation that Schroeder Method was agreeable to your Crown Class D amp. These are important data points to address the initial concern that was voiced to me regarding use with Class D amps. As more evidence accrues it may be concluded eventually that Schroeder Method is compatible with Class D universally. I hesitate to make such a sweeping statement now, because there always could be a weird topology in an amp that might react poorly. I am still a long way from having it demonstrated to be absolutely benign operationally. But, it's moving in the right direction!
I'm not surprised at all that the Crown amp's performance was lifted by Schroeder Method. I have never had an occurrence where an amp's performance was not elevated by the Method. This is further confirmation of my belief that the double IC would benefit any price range of cables and components. I believe it can, with the proper interconnects, outperform nearly all passively networked cables regardless of cost.
You can either make your own Schroeder Method XLR cables or buy them from vendors. I am still using assembled Clarity Cable Organic ICs conjoined by Audio Sensibility XLR Y Cables (NOTE: the terminations of the Y cables for this function must be opposites, as the terminations of XLR cables are not identical). I believe ANTICABLES, Audio Sensibility and Acoustic BBQ would make Schroeder Method XLR ICs. The information coming back to me at this point is that a manufactured Schroeder Method cable is superior sonically to an assembled one. However, with my experimentation the assembled ones are advantageous for reviewing.
I currently have the double ICs feeding some prodigious Monos that are on review. Unassailable sound quality!
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.
