Doug Schroeder Method, Double ic

Jayctoy, that’s great!

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, I agree with you, .

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. 

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...

Doug Iam not sure if SM can also be apply on digital cables From transport to DAC.