The Science of Cables

So why not make IC's out of Litz wire!? According to Schroeder's hypothesis this should have the same benefits. Multiple conduction paths!

@millercarbon: That already exists! Litz wire! I had speaker cable made of that back in '78. Polk Cobra cable! Worked fine, didn't damage my GAS Son amp from the extra capacitance!

Why, yes, the obtuse, impractical discussion here is coruscating! ;)
After all, who needs a practical, powerful method for improving an audio system? Why on earth spend time on that?

Your thoughts are hardly novel. See the thread on the cable forum that bears my name to catch up. :)

I tried the Schroeder Method. Worked so good I raced out and bought some more Y-connectors. We are now getting unimaginably fantastic results running the Miller Method: Connect one Y-connector to the source, then connect one Y-connector to each channel. Then connect one Y-connector to each of those. Now instead of two you have eight interconnects. The improvement is exponential!

Of course you may wonder: How is this any different than running several insulated strands within one interconnect? Wouldn't that be the same, only better due to eliminating all the crappy signal degrading Y-connectors? Wouldn't IC makers figure this out? Wouldn't they all be racing to put as many conductors in parallel as they could? How would using more conductors possibly be harmful? And if it is then why on Earth would I want to run that risk?

To which I answer: take your pesky questions elsewhere! We got an off the rails thread to keep going here! So shoo! Away with you!

Two of our skeptics stated here that they were going to try Schroeder Method of IC placement. That was more than a month ago. 

In the reality that exists outside of the world that strictly lives by the primacy of LCR we have this very interesting development.....Kinda interesting that the term magic sneaks into the story ....so does this imply that MIT may have a Dept of Theoretical Snake Oil Physics or maybe a Department of Applied Physical Magic. Might have to press them to do some rigorous objective analysis like triple blind fold tests and other seriously rigoristical stuff, eh....you know just to keep them honest....I mean these guys are just leading edge scientists and all....and they may not yet understand that LCR explains absolutely everything about transmission of electricity thru cable thingees.

The blockbuster discovery last year of superconductivity in a material called twisted bilayer graphene caught theorists off guard. In all their published ruminations, none of them had even speculated about the phenomenon that showed up in Pablo Jarillo-Herrero’s lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: a sudden loss of electrical resistance when two sheets of graphene — honeycomb lattices of carbon atoms — were stacked and twisted at a relative angle of 1.1 degrees. But theorists are making up for that lapse now, publishing a steady stream of explanations for this “magic angle.”

It’s too soon to say which theory, if any, will do the most to elucidate twisted bilayer graphene’s behavior or enable predictions of other phenomena in twisted stacks of two-dimensional materials — an emerging subject of study known as “twistronics.” But one prominent proposal could jump to the front of the pack. In a paper published in March in Physical Review Letters, the Harvard University condensed matter theorists Grigory Tarnopolsky, Alex Kruchkov and Ashvin Vishwanath offered a detailed picture of what might be going on — as well as suggesting what other angles to probe for potentially exciting results.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/whats-the-magic-behind-graphenes-magic-angle-20190528/

FWIW, these cables have an interesting back story and I'm hearing a LOT of good comments from fellow audiophiles who have tried them on the 30 day free trial that is offered.
https://iconoclastcable.com/story/index.htm
The site above has links to the designer's white papers that explain the design philosophy and rationale. 

dave_b,

It seems that I found some other Transparent Gen 5 cables while Googling. It came out as $17 000 for 8-feet speaker cable (hopefully, a pair).

What is the full name of your cables, they seem to be way more reasonably priced?

I applaud your willingness to try this, roberjerman! I hope that it will be a fun and eye/ear opening experience! If I had not such a long history of trying various methods and configurations I likely would not have had the courage to try it. I have had so many unexpectedly good results from alternative setups that I couldn't discount the possibility of something good coming from it. I will be curious as to your experience, which I'm sure you would be happy to share here. I have had very good results going from source to preamp. 

rocknss, at this time I know of no minimal length necessary. If I were to speculate on the outcomes with sorter ICs, imo a shorter IC is always preferred in all situations (I know there are others who disagree; I'm not interested in opening up a debate on that). My guess is that a comparable benefit of Schroeder Method would be realized by using shorter ICs as to longer ICs. If the IC is about 1 foot long, I would think that to be agreeable to the method. I will also be curious about your results. 

Typical lengths of IC’s in the Schroeder Method are 8-ft or less. At least I have enjoyed good SQ results within that range.

 I will try this as soon as I get another two y connectors (already have two). IC's will be AQ Silver Extremes. First test will be between CD player and preamp.

How long of an interconnect do you need. My interconnect between CD an Pre is less then the length of two y connectors.

@roberjerman, +2, for courage and open-mindedness. 

dave_b, is your reference to, "I can’t help but smile and laugh at the contortions and mental gymnastics many audiophiles put themselves through, attempting to find that one special way to connect their components that will leave all the others in the dust, an inference that my Schroeder Method is negligible? If so, what evidence do you have for that conclusion? 

@douglas_schroeder : I will try this as soon as I get another two y connectors (already have two). IC's will be AQ Silver Extremes. First test will be between CD player and preamp. 

That’s the exciting news...pricing was reasonable compared to what garbage is sold for many multiples higher!  For $1800 I received beautifully made 12ft bi wire speaker cables with customized connectors and a pair of Balanced Interconnects.  I’ve owned $12k cables that did not convey the music as realistically as these manage to do.  Considering they can keep you off the cable go round...they are a steal!!

They'd better be.

After installing some new Transparent Gen 5 Plus cabling in my system, I can’t help but smile and laugh at the contortions and mental gymnastics many audiophiles put themselves through, attempting to find that one special way to connect their components that will leave all the others in the dust.  The latest stuff from Transparent Audio is just soooo right sounding that it’s just sick, compared to anything else I’ve ever heard or owned.  Just crazy great, they allow music to flow as if it were restored back to before the recording chain degraded it.  Mind bogglingly musical is all I can say...just so far beyond all the other wires available.  IMNSHO

roberjerman, would you like to try the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement? How about being one of the very few skeptics who is willing to actually try it to see whether their skepticism is justified? I find most skeptics are entrenched, putting much more confidence in their skepticism than is warranted. Are you willing to test that by trying the Schroeder Method, or will you continue to be closed to an assessment of whether your own perspective is justified? 

glupson, Teo_Audio is the person who made that post. He is the one who can help you with the background info. It seems as though the link Teo_Audio provided in his original post provides that info. 

Oy vey..

The above post by Roberjerman is why I recommended Doug copy his two posts to the threads that more aptly discuss those particular IC topologies. 

I encourage Roberjerman to read Doug’s Dagogo article about parallel IC placement, which includes commentary about applicable theories. This forum has at least three threads devoted to the empirical and theoretical aspects of these IC topologies. The breadcrumb links to those Forum threads are found in the following thread:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/doug-schroeder-method-double-ic

@douglas_schroeder : so an IC made of many strands of litz wire should have the best sound quality? According to your "theory" doubling the connecting wire will improve SQ. Conversely, halving the number of connecting wires will reduce SQ. And the basis for this "theory" is "my g**den ears" told me it is so! Hardly what I consider scientific!

Earlier in this thread, a post mentioned...

This just in about the ear: The ear is capable of detecting sound where the motion of the cilia in the ear is....

>>less than the width of an atom.<<

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-mechanism-ear-exquisite-sensitivity.html

I am sorry, I know it was mentioned more than two months ago but I just noticed it. Does anyone know where the original work about that "less than the width of an atom" can be found? I am really interested in learning about methods used.

Any info is much appreciated.

Ok, I admit that might be better...
Still, the Teo Audio guys should chime in.

celander
Geoff wrote:

”And how electromagnetic waves travel through solid metal conductors.”

I wonder whether this matters if one is using fluid metal conductors.

[Hint: time for the Teo Audio guys to report!]

>>>>>I’m all for that but let’s make it a little more interesting. Let’s make it, “I wonder whether the electromagnetic waves of photons matters if one is using fluid metal conductors.” See, isn’t that better?

04-25-2019 3:10pm
Geoff wrote:

”And how electromagnetic waves travel through solid metal conductors.”

I wonder whether this matters if one is using fluid metal conductors. 

[Hint: time for the Teo Audio guys to report!]

@douglas_schroeder, +1, for clarity. 

Sorry, that was a jumbled mess of posts I did! I shouldn't rush my posts, bad things happen in regards to descriptions of systems. One of the downsides of building so many systems is that I occasionally describe the connections incorrectly. Mea Culpa.

Let me try again; Simply put, the AES/EBU Schroeder Method digital link (XLR acting as AES/EBU) is going from the MF transport to the Exogal Comet DAC. I had done a double SPDIF link earlier many weeks ago, but I cannot recall which DAC I was using. Now, this is the second time I have done a Schroeder Method digital link, both times superb results. 

@ razorbraun

Had to think about it a bit, dredge up a lot of grad school era stuff, flip some things around, and turn other things inside out, but yeah that is pretty well sorta absolutely kinda bang on you nailed it....

And also is a great way to look at the why and how of chaos, or rather what our relatively simplistic math/analytical tools describe as chaos....and why it reefs our relatively simplistic math based theory thingees and why we humans can simply ride it out...or to paraphrase you, at base, life, writ large, is an art form...  

Damn that was good.......to loosely paraphrase my late dad, jeez your eyes are totally wide open....and then some pretty wicked extrapolations from your observations...wicked....just wicked....

As fate would have it cables are not subsonic, sonic or supersonic. They aren’t even hypersonic. They’re light speed. So are power cables. So you can’t apply fluid dynamics or finite analysis or Schlieren photography. You need to apply the laws of electromagnetism and analyze how vibration and magnetic fields interact with electromagnetic waves. And how electromagnetic waves travel through solid metal conductors.

"AES/EBU is an analogue output."

Confused about this as well.

My head hurts. I am glad I don't need an aerospace engineering degree to enjoy my audio system.

You're going to catch some flak for that. 😄

But, I agree that basic measurements are one thing, and just that. Something like an Em diagram would be a much needed step in the right direction. 

People tend to forget that the data, or graph, is not the music. It's a crude representation of the event. A guideline, for sure, but it can always be massaged.

All the best,
Nonoise

Tara22 thanks for the EM and Physics... very interesting.

Its important to remember that “Objective Measurements” are dependent on the mathematical model of the problem or physical reality one is attempting to explain, predict or understand.  

Each model has its own limits since by nature mathematical models are just that mathematical models and are not reality itself but a model of that physical reality.

Thats not to say that they are not useful or that they can give us great understanding...

I agree that performance metrics are important and may give us a means of comparison... the question is it a valuable metric of performance/ comparison.

let me give you an example from my experience in a different field. 

I am not an electrical engineer, I am an ex fighter pilot and now a commercial pilot.  Flying fighter aircraft required one to fly the aircraft to its max design limits (the edge of the envelope) where the flight characteristics may not be stable or predictable.  

I also have a degree in Aerospace Engineering,  Obviously we build airplanes and electronics based on mathematical models but also accomplish extensive testing to verify the stability and performance of aircraft.

Subsonic equations of motion (EOM) and supersonic equations of motion are quite different,  subsonic incompressible flow fields use some of the the Exact same equations used to describe Electo-magnetic phenomena
...Hence each uses the same math to describe different physical problems, but each have their limitations.

When designing transonic and supersonic aircraft the EOM become more difficult to solve as they are non-linear and simplification and assumptions become necessary as well as different ways of modeling flow fields ( finite element analysis).

As the speeds get higher toward hypersonic flight physical properties, thermodynamics etc  that were insignificant in very low speed flight become much more significant.

As a fighter pilot we needed to be able to assess the enemy’s aircraft performance in relation to our own aircrafts

Some of the basic numbers of comparison gave us a basis to Accomplish a performance comparison of the flight envelopes of my own AC and the enemies AC

for example :
Min and max speed,  max altitude, wing loading, engine to thrust ratio.  Range payload etc.

Each of these gave us some measure of comparison but when it came to Air-to-Air combat they only described part of the picture.

Someone smart came up with an Energy Analysis to compare aircraft it was called an Em diagram... which is a plot of the flight envelope bounded by the aircrafts structural G limit, Lift, Drag, Thrust and speed limits etc.  Each diagram was for a specific altitude. As the altitude changed so did all the variables used in creating the Em diagrams.

The bottom line is that all of the performance characteristics were interdependent and variable.  The diagrams gave us a tool to compare but it had it limits... we got an idea where we had a performance advantage and where our weaknesses were.  We would use these Em diagrams to capitalize our own aircrafts advantages when engaging enemy aircraft.  We would attempt to engage at speeds and altitudes where we had a tactical advantage.... but in the end it was such a dynamic and fluid environment that the Em was only a way to help analyze and hopefully give us a way of surviving and hopefully dominating enemy aircraft in a fight.

Flying fighters required you to “become” the machine you were flying in-order to max perform it.  

Simply said it is an art form

so what does all this mean?

I’m wondering if cables are subsonic, supersonic or hypersonic... IE are there  “significant-digits” in the physics that are important... ones that we can actually hear?

I’m thinking that we “objective measurements” give a some means of comparison, ( like you said resistance, capacitance etc )... the engineer in me says yes 

Resistance, capacitance etc....I hear Min/ Max Speed, Max Altitude, Thrust-to-Weight ratio etc.

So what you’re asking is there an Em diagram for cables?

maybe the answer is it requires both... an Em diagram and Art

@douglas_schroeder Ok, so I am confused by these two posts. It might be a benefit to re-post these posts in the Shroeder Method thread: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/doug-schroeder-method-double-ic

But back to my confusion. In the first paragraph of your first post, you mention the set-up: "I reverted back to my MF transport feeding the Exogal Comet DAC and Ion Power DAC combo." From this description, I gather the transport is only sending digital data as an output signal. And from this statement from your second paragraph, "I once again used the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement with the transport’s AES/EBU output," I gather you are using an SM digital AES/EBU interconnect cable between the transport and the Exogal DAC. And in the final paragraph of your first post, you mention that "AES/EBU with this unit is very sensitive to such cable changes." What is "this unit," the transport or the DAC?

But then in your second post above, you clarify the SM IC is being used in the following manner: "AES/EBU is an analogue output." So my confusion is whether you are promoting the SM AES/EBU XLR IC, originally intended as a digital cable, as an analog cable.

My wording on he last paragraph is vague; I have used two digital sources, CD transport and file playback. The AES/EBU is an analogue output. I have done double ICs on source to preamp, source to integrated DAC, and preamp to amp. I had previously tried the MF transport's SPDIF output with Schroeder Method successfully as well.

Regarding something that actually has potential to benefit audiophiles' systems, last night I disassembled the digital source, as I am sending back the SONORE Signature Rendu SE for an upgrade, and I reverted back to my MF transport feeding the Exogal Comet DAC and Ion Power DAC combo. I will be reporting on the upgrades to the Signature Rendu SE and Exogal Ion Powerdac's HyperDrive upgrade in due time at Dagogo.com 

The pertinence of this post is that I once again used the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement with the transport's AES/EBU output. It is superlative, definitively high quality as a link. I did two different cables in this configuration, the much less expensive Audio Sensibility manufactured Schroeder Method XLR 1M with their least expensive IC cable. It was very good, well worth pursuing by budget oriented audiophiles. 

Then, I went to the assembled Clarity Cable Organic IC put together with Audio Sensibility's silver XLR Y Cables prepared for Schroeder Method. WOW! I am stunned and VERY happy with that outcome! I have never heard any Redbook source, even $10K players using single ICs, in my room with close to this erudition (I presume similar benefits could be obtained by those with high end players)! The Kingsound King III electrostatic speakers sound wonderfully pure, coherent (they are what I described in the review as Line Source ESL; multiple ESL drive units stacked), and now with the Ion with HyperDrive phenomenally powerful in the low end. Assessed by distinct, separate comparisons from the cable changes. 

Imo the digital application of Schroeder Method with digital source in the two instances I have tried is a rousing success. AES/EBU with this unit is very sensitive to such cable changes. I do not wish to overly boast of this, but it is becoming clearer to me that this has the potential to revolutionize passive system setups. In the end active systems may sound flat out worse than passive speakers with Schroeder Method cabling. I would expect our skeptics to mock that assessment, but if they actually ever tried things they would find out.

Just an update on my barb cabling. Don’t evaluate it immediately, it sounds much better after a break in period of at least two weeks. Also, finally located our cat Boots who has been missing for a three days caught up in the wire. Not sure whether to remove him or not since there is a noticeable improvement in imaging and soundstage.

But it would have been sufficient, one imagines. 

Yep..my ex-wife "dusted" my turntable shortly after we married. The Soundsmith cartridge cantilever and stylus were removed with the dust..That was not the reason for the divorce, however..

tedious

@elizabeth I guess your cabling is "set and forget."

And stop calling me surely.

@elizabeth do you tip the barbs with any RF or EMI coatings? Just curious..

That barb wire is directional is something, Shirley,  audiophiles can wrap their heads around.

That barb wire is directional is Shirley something audiophiles can wrap their heads around.