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....
128x128jayctoy
I hope Audioquest, Kimber, Caridas, and other Cables companies will utilize Doug Method, It WORKs , with proper matching and caution....

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.  :)

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.


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. ...