The Science of Cables

glupson, I appreciate your cordial ongoing discussion. It's much better than us sniping each other's arguments. :)

I am unsure where you got the impression that I tried triple interconnects, or that they were not efficacious. I have never tried the triple IC. I may at some point, but that was not me; there is another member whom I believe has contributed on this thread who was doing the triple. So, I cannot comment from experience. 

However, my recollection is that this member was very happy� with the triple IC arrangement. I do not recall seeing any comments of displeasure with it. I believe he felt it was worth trying. I do not know; perhaps he has gone back to a double IC that he felt was superior. He watches the cable threads, so perhaps he can comment. I think he was talking it up quite a bit on the thread bearing my name. 

I had raised a concern that unlimited parallel runs of ICs may cause problems with the output of certain devices if the native impedance of the cable is too low. One maker of a NOS DAC did not want me to use Schroeder Method because he suspected that the DAC would not drive it well. 

I myself would be willing to try a triple, but I would want to discuss with equipment manufacturers or other industry members first. I don't like potentially blowing up gear. 

If the geometry and gauge of the aftermarket XLR IC you tried was similar to the $15-16 one, then I am not surprised at all that the sound quality was so close. If they were quite different, ie. different conductor material or different AWG, then I do not know why they were similar sounding. 

Also, I wouldn't expect to hear big changes with systems in the $5-10K range if I were changing a single pair of ICs. I remember doing all that and many times there was  marginally different result. It takes a rig at about $25K to always hear changes to any cables. Rigs at $50K it has been easy, universal in hearing changes. YMMV

I figure you won't believe me, but Schroeder Method has been more profound of a change to the system than changing single ICs. It also doesn't seem dependent upon the cost/pedigree of the ICs used. 

The thread must be getting long enough that people are not reading it entirely. Someone just emailed me seeking to know what Schroeder Method is. 

Search it out at dagogo.com  

@glupson

 Cables may be dismissed as being capable of significant differences because they are, in essence and not in some very complicated "flowing lava"-kind of example, simple. At least in the minds of those suspicious ones.

    Well, a few things about the above...which seems a central pivot of your post.

First it is not "flowing lava" is any way, shape, or form. Which is something that you could not say if you knew even the slightest thing about the eutectic alloy we use. And we all know the saw about talking about something we know little or nothing about, but I digress...

Second, it is not at all simple, though it is typically expressed and "understood" in simplistic terms by folks such as yourself. And btw there is a considerable difference between simple and simplistic, a difference you may want to examine.

And third, those aren't necessarily just suspicious minds though that is some small part of it, rather they are minds that are more correctly described as functionally most incurious, and very tightly closed .

glupson

It is simply hard to believe, unless you are a priori firm believer, that changes in anything which is already on a fairly decent level can be so impressive. Noticeable maybe, but Earth-shattering (or whatever other description gets mentioned) just does not seem believable.

You are free to believe as you wish, of course. But once a difference is established, whether it is an "impressive" difference or not is purely subjective. After all, many people consider the whole HEA pursuit unworthy because for them, the result isn't worth the cost.