Doug Schroeder Method, Double ic

Celander,  How do you get extra bandwidth.  You lowered the resistance with parallel conductors and upped the capacitance and induction.  I don't see any reason for the bandwidth to change just because those changed..  I get the DAC and preamp are reacting to the change in current, but I don't see that raising bandwidth.  

Unless the conclusion was changing those three electrical components resulted in a cleaner signal with less noise allowing a component to operate more efficiently and more readily reproduce higher frequencies.  But that is filtering out noise to allow better operating parameters.

What is it that you see in changing the induction capacitance and resistance that would make frequency change.

@kingrex See Bob Smith’s comment at the end of this link:

https://www.dagogo.com/audio-blast-schroeder-method-interconnect-placement/

@ozzy See comment by @douglas_schroeder at the end of the above link with respect to his findings with the method using a parallel run of balanced XLR-terminated IC’s. 

Ok, I re-read it.  I gather the resistance went up, not down.  And a warning that amps may not like this.  I still see nothing talking about frequency extension or any engineering theories on how changing the electrical values passing the signal would benefit frequency extension.  

If such a simple concept as increasing mass would increased frequency then more designers would use it. I know they alter mass with speaker cables. Almost every manufacturer charges more for the better speaker cables which all seem to have heavier gauge wire. In my own personal conversations with cable manufacturers they say purity of material spacing from one another as well as shielding, construction insulation etc are the critical component to obtaining optimum sound. I doubt they would all miss added mass and not focus on that if it was relevant.

I am in no way saying Schroeder did not obtain positive results. It seems he and others have experimented with a topology and antidotal evidence is showing some benefits in their systems.  I am just wondering what the real reason for the results is. Can Improvement of the signal resulting in higher frequencies being reproduce by the amp be done in a more efficient and or cost-effective manner. Doubling up interconnect which are already expensive is pretty cost prohibitive. Especially when you need to do it between a phono, a DAC,  a CD a tape machine excetera. That's a whole lot of cable and additional Hydra head behind your gear.

celander,

Thanks for the reply, but I do not see any reference to Doug trying the double method with , just a warning.

ozzy

@kingrex I’ll quote the relevant passages from Bob Smith’s comment:

“Noteworthy in the above is the fact that the Capacitance doubles and the upper Cutoff Frequency (where above which the signal begins to be attenuated) almost doubles. So in the event that we “double-up” our audio cables, we actually extend their bandwidth – albeit we are talking in the region of radio frequencies so there is no real benefit there with respect to extending the fundamental audio bandwidth.

“What IS significant though is the fact that all of the above leads to a potential reduction in reflected energy and/or standing waves within the cable, and that is because of two primary factors. By lowering the Character Impedance and consequently, raising the Cutoff Frequency, we “push” or force any potential reflections up to twice the frequency at which they would otherwise occur. That then leads to two other outcomes. First, higher frequencies find it more difficult to propagate down the length of any conductor due to the “skin effect,” and are therefore usually attenuated more with respect to those that occur at lower frequencies. As a result, lower magnitude levels of reflected energy translates into less interaction with the Source and Load circuits. That means less potential for the formation of any associated Phase Distortion artifacts as outlined above.”

Please note that this is the opinion of Bob Smith. I’m not an EE to assess his opinion.

I doubt folks are going to go “all in” with modding all of their IC’s this way, regardless of the cost or the myriad of interconnections contemplated. So the fear of HYDRA is avoided.

The questions for many are a bit different:

(1) What audible improvements could I achieve for those 1 or 2 critical sources (that is, those sources representing ~80%+ of my listening time) when those sources are connected to my receiver, integrated amp or preamp using paralleled IC’s?

(2) Could I realize a significant improvement using the Schroeder Method with IC’s of a more *modest* cost that rivals or exceeds the cost of my expensive IC’s?

(3) And if I didn’t want to engage the “enticing offer” from my favorite cable manufacturer to buy his/her best IC set due to the law of diminishing returns, then could I nevertheless achieve even better quality by buying another run of my present cable using this method?