Doug Schroeder Method, Double ic
Folks should know there is an extensive discussion of the SM of interconnect placement in posts made on the “The Science of Cables” forum thread. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-science-of-cables |
After several weeks of listening to SM double ICs from cdp to pre amp I have replaced the Kimber KCAG with 2 sets of Mark Levinson Red Rose silver custom ICs. I like pure Litz construction especially using the Schroeder concept--new wire has many strands of pure silver Litz. Very, very positive initial results over the Kimber. Will age for a week or two--let this board know after. Oh, blew my power supply in my Marchand crossover so SM can be extended rather directly to amps. I am a 15 foot pair short so I will let you know. |
beanstalks, welcome; I see you are new to the site, at least in terms of participating in discussions. Thank you for what appears to be very positive, unbiased feedback in regards to Schroeder Method. I couldn't remember the details of your first post, so I returned to it; here it is in its entirety to refresh everyone's memory: "Hello everyone. Tried the basic Schroeder method 3 weeks ago but did not post then because I am the skeptics skeptic. I removed and replaced the cables 3 times because I disbelieved my own ears. I finally invited 3 audiophile friends and did a "blind" test. They were shocked to put it mildly. All three have read this thread as Grannyring surmised and all three doubled up on ICs to pre amp. Since I am bi amping Hi's and Lows thru a Marchand crossover I am trying to solve the mechanics of doing a "Schroeder" to each amp. Thanks Doug--such a vast improvement to an old school system. PS. I am using a TBI sub amp that is class D but only running that off a pre amp with a single rca." I hope that our skeptics over on the other thread, "The Science of Cables" see this. As a former cable skeptic I know it takes overwhelming evidence to consider that you just might be wrong. The typical reaction is to argue, argue, argue and rage against the perceived foolishness, ignorance, etc. rather than humbling one's self to simply question the absolute confidence. As important as your response is in general, and it's very positive, the sentence that really catches my eye is this one: "Oh, blew my power supply in my Marchand crossover so SM can be extended rather directly to amps." What precisely are you saying in that sentence? By "blew" your PS are you saying you dumped it, or that it died and you are attempting a work around? It sounds like your Marchand died, and you tried going direct to amp with the Schroeder Method. If so, then you are going direct from preamp to amps without the Marchand? I would not be surprised if that resulted in a far cleaner, more captivating result. I have not found Pro-oriented and lower cost crossovers to be good for audio systems holistically. I also have not found active crossovers to inherently outperform traditional pre/amp setups. So much depends upon the gear used and the cabling - especially the cabling, now that Schroeder Method has arrived. The beauty of a simple system with double IC is potentially breathtaking. The only comparison that comes readily to mind is when the Hubble Space telescope was upgraded and refocused. The depth of field was immediately noticeable and so gratifying. The same thing has happened with double IC in audio systems, the resolution is fantastic, and confirms my assertion that there is no such thing as too much definition/detail in an audio system. With increase in resolution/definition/detail comes a much superior experience. The depth of sound field, and the attendant retrieval of micro-detail is exhilarating. I feel so much more immersed, overwhelmed in the senses than previously. Never knew stereo could be this good. I would like for you to discuss the physical system change more thoroughly and the sound that you are experiencing. |
@ douglas_schroeder Interesting regarding your use with the Hosa XLR's. It surprises me given they apparently use high purity copper and the actual connectors look like Neutrik brand. Oh well bad call on my part. The cost really starts ramping up with Audio Sensibility's system unfortunately. It appears Pangea has a modestly priced set of connectors (RCA) to implement parallel runs, as well as their own interconnects. I don't have any experience with their audio cables but do have one of their power chords which seems fine. Having owned and bought into hideously expensive cables in the past to the point of embarrasment its not likely I would ever repeat. At one point in my audio-foolish behavior I had more money sunk into cables than most people have in their entire two channel systems reading this thread. Never again. Since those days I have made dozens of interconnects (not scientifically based) of my own design, all of them outperforming expensive cables. At some point along the way it finally sunk in that the vast majority of cables are nothing more than tone controls, and people use them to make up for some other anomaly (sound defect) in their systems. How else can you explain the vast amount of used cables on the market for sale on places like Audiogon. Regarding the science of cables, if left up to me all cable manufacturers would be required to not only test and measure all of the necessary parameters but to also publish those specs in conjunction with their wild ads and claims. Perhaps many of you are aware of the extreme extent that Belden went into while developing their Iconoclast Cables. Its doubtful any other company has put so much science, technology and research into their cables. I don't have any experience with them directly, but have read all of the white papers and data that went into these cables. This is not to say they couldn't be improved by parallel runs however. While not cheap, they also are far from being anywhere near the most expensive cables on the market either. Bob Smiths comments in your original article kept to the science which is important while trying to explain why there is such a difference in parallel runs. I found this appealing and compelling. |
