Would any of our skeptics like to try the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement? |
I will summarize the results seen so far; the Schroeder Method has been used now in dozens of systems and has resulted in 2 instances, both with headphone setups, where the outcome was considered marginal, but users still chose to use it over single IC, and the rest deemed clearly beneficial and very happy they tried it. The observations are piling up that it is not system dependent, or not nearly as system dependent as you think. i.e. It is considered to cause improvement in some rigs and degradation in others. If dozens of rigs show marked improvement, and two showed marginal improvement, and there has not been an incident of clear degradation, then the dismissal that, "In some systems this could be an improvement, not so much in others," is starting to face statistical probability of being an incorrect conclusion. Also, the guess that it all depends on the SUT [system under test] would not be correct. There are now four makers of cables (TEO Audio, Audio Sensibility, and now ANTICABLES, as well as a smaller outfit on Agon; sorry, can't recall your moniker) that are making Schroeder Method ICs. I do not believe these people are opportunists, but are responding to customer request/feedback. I have no interest in a lengthy argument about it. You will either accept the informal comparisons and observations of those who are trying, or you will stick with your impression of it. I imagine that if you would dismiss all these persons' conclusions you would say it is due to confirmation bias. If that is your position, given the additional information I shared above, then you likely will not try it. If you do not wish to try, we can simply be in disagreement, and I will move on to others who have expressed doubt, but are willing to try. Are you going to try it or not? If you respond with ridicule or an attempted explanation of why it won't/can't work I will consider that a "no" and will move on. :) |
Elizabeth, while celander provided the answer, I thought I would respond as well. While a particular IC may may have multiple conductors, Schroeder Method specifically pairs full cables, which means paired ground wires as well. celander likes the HAVE Inc. product, and I enjoy the Audio Sensibility products (reviewed in a short Audio Blast article at dagogo.com). My understanding is that theoretically Schroeder Method should sound like a double length IC (Over the years I have found 1m to sound slightly better than 2m), but the outcome that is happening with Schroeder Method is a vastly superior performance to even the shorter single IC. It seems logically to be completely wasteful, redundant, potentially causing problems, etc. In other words, it seems a stupid idea. However, the sound is fundamentally improved over single IC, on the level of a big dollar component change, not a tweak. Ergo, not wasteful, redundant, causing problems, etc. Smart. :) |
From my perspective we have made great progress; we are at the point of asking skeptics to try something. Previously it was all theoretical discussion. Now, there can actually be something done to perhaps change some minds. Because we all know how effective decades of arguing on the topic has been. :( cd318, would you like to try Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement? I am looking for a simple "yes" or "no". Let’s stick to ICs, and if you become abusive or ridicule I am finished discussing it with you. If you say yes, and would like to cordially discuss it, I am open to it. BTW, for those just joining us... Schroeder Method is at this time still experimental; I advise that it is a "do at your own risk" activity. Thus far there have been no negative outcomes re: equipment reported, but there is concern by some regarding class D amps. I encourage anyone who is not sure to consult with their equipment manufacturer as to suitability of it. (P.S. Ignore laughter and ridicule; push on for an answer to suitability. I have received everything from mockery to congratulations by designers and manufacturers). Curious parties should read the original Audio Blast article on Schroeder Method at dagogo.com |
roberjerman, you are quite a vocal skeptic here. Would you like to try Schroeder Method? I am making a presumption that you think it would not work, or that it would have a low chance of bringing about a beneficial change. I'm interested in whether you will try it, given the several instances where it is deemed highly efficacious.
If you reply with ridicule I will discontinue conversation, because I am not interested in arguing with someone who, because of their feeling of pride in being correct, believes they have the right to mock someone else.
So, yes or no, are you going to try Schroeder Method? It's not that expensive; you should be able to do it for under $200. If you have four identical ICs already, you can try it for under $100 perhaps.
|
jhills, please refrain from characterization of the Schroeder Method as collusion on the part of manufacturers or those associated with the industry. You have not done your homework prior to posting. There has been largely manufacturer participation in this thread. However, you state generally, "Interesting - for the most part, the only ones you hear blowing about the greatness of the Schroeder Method, are those making and selling high dollar cables - go figure." That is incorrect, and an attempt to derisively dismiss it.
If you wish to be taken seriously, you will need to avoid obvious bias aimed at discrediting a method with which you have no experience. You have damaged your reputation here with your post, and would do well to refrain from further faux pas.
Mention has been made repeatedly here and in the thread linked above, the one on this forum entitled "Doug Schroeder Method, Double IC", about audiophiles unassociated with the industry who are rightly amazed, thrilled and thankful for the Schroeder Method. The community can plainly see that this is not the industry, but everyday users who found it efficacious. I invite those who wish to check me on this to visit that thread where it will be obvious that the community is loving the Schroeder Method for its efficacy.
I grant you this; your criticism stems from a valid observation, that every cable maker promotes their wares as the best. Obviously; that's marketing. Then, however, you mistakenly equate that marketing as the bulk of response to the Method. However, the Schroeder Method is not being sold by myself, and cable makers were free to examine the method and if not suitable let it alone. My point is that you have lumped in the Method with bias against cable makers in general, which I understand, but do not find justification. People can use whatever ICs they wish, even low cost ones, in order to do double ICs. So, your skepticism, imo based on promotion of cables is unwarranted, especially in light of the number of persons who elected to share their experiences in order to congratulate it themselves after trying it.
Would you like to try the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement?
You likely would not have confirmation bias in trying it! :)
If you respond with belittling comments, mockery, etc. then I will discontinue conversation, as I have no desire to discuss this with persons whose goal is to wrangle in a contest of whits. If you respond with further objections theoretically, I will presume you are not interested, and I will move on. So, yes or no, will you try the Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement?
|
Jim, Thank you for your thoughtful, cordial reply.
Elizabeth, yeah, the cost to play is pretty prohibitive. Kills. You would think I was asking people too try a $5K cartridge.
Which brings up this question: What is the substantive difference scientifically/analytically between analogue, in the industry and among users, and cables? I see vanishingly little difference. Which would make analogue lovers who mock cables huge hypocrites. It would also open up all the same sweeping criticisms of the industry and users that are applied to cables. I am very close to making that a proclamation, but I leave it open at this point for input.
Call me a very serious analogue skeptic, but not absolutist yet. If anyone can demonstrate objectively how analogue is applied and assessed in systems differently (I mean differences with significance, not passing differences) then I will be open to reconsideration. :)
I have a digital source; I do not use analogue. However, be careful how you reply, for if you as a cable skeptic would condemn my habitus, then you condemn yourself if you eschew aftermarket cables.
Perhaps this has all been hashed out for aeons over in the analogue forum. I don't know, I have plenty to do elsewhere. If this is a perennial debate in the vinyl world feel free to enlighten me.
Am I radically off-base, or do I have a point? :)
|
People with less system building experience simply don't have a frame of reference that allows envisioning better, and are suspicious of claims to that effect. One has to be willing to test their suspicions. Those who do, discover.
I understand skepticism. Many years ago I was a cable skeptic. It's one reason why I am willing to try what no one else will.
Do we have any skeptics willing to try Schroeder Method, given due diligence re: compatibility? |
Jim
I won't hold your being an analogue lover against you. ;)
So, you trust what the sellers say about the cartridges, but don't trust me with a free method? Seriously, how is the improvement of a platter , tone arm, mat, phono cable or phono pre, or isolated motor measured aside from subjectively? How is that not parallel to cables?
Anyone care to explain? I am open to input on this.
Which of our skeptics wish to try Schroeder Method?
Precisely what science is applied in turntable evaluation? What distinguishes it from cable evaluation? What cost structure is defensible for analogue, and why are manufacturer claims accepted uncritically? What is the markup on analogue products relative to cables? Should expensive isolation products be accepted?
I wonder such things as an analogue skeptic. Are there sound (Pun!) Answers?
To me many of the assumptions and methods of analogue, specifically Vinyl, are more tenuous than Schroeder Method. |
Ok, we have some meaningful discussion; let's dial back the rhetoric and keep the open, non-competitive discussion going. Jhills, good point; I can see where you might have been influenced to think it had to be a big $ interconnect. No, it does not. I believe it would work even with throw away ICs. My understanding is Schroeder Method is completely independent of sales/marketing/perceived valuation of cables. However, let's be clear; from my and others' comparisons the quality of the IC is carried through in the "magnifying" - that's fairly accurate catch word for the global effect - of the single ICs sonic characteristics in the system. It becomes very easy to hear differences between cables, much easier than with single IC. The effect on the system is pervasive and powerful, really Unbelievably powerful. I have said it is on the order of a $10K component upgrade. Pick your component. It's like a leap in speaker production. etc. I know that sounds absurd, but to describe it as lesser would not convey reality. In fact, I have never discussed using the TEO Double Double, because I have never used it! I believe I will at some point, but it has been others who have been discussing that particular Schroeder Method cable. I have discussed publicly the Audio Sensibility manufactured double IC in my Audio Blast article at dagogo.com about that company, which is far less expensive, likely in the realm of sensibility in the mind of many for an experimental cable. The presumption that I am somehow tied in with TEO's sale of their Double Double is incorrect. I did not ask them to make it, I have not tried it (though I hope to), and as not yet being a user I am not yet endorsing it. Hopefully that clears up some confusion in the community. I am, however, happy that they trusted my discussion enough to be the first to make a double IC, and that they seem interested in my impression of trying it. As to the Clarity Cables, I have on loan generously from Chris and Melissa Owen some cables including Organic ICs, and I have found them to best many a competitor. I consider them among the most favored of all cables I have ever used (dozens) in 30 years. So, yes, I used them and continue to do so in Schroeder Method, and they are favorites. (BTW, I think I could have gotten cables with MSRP in the tens of thousands on loan similarly indefinitely, but they were not as good imo. If my priority was image I would use them to bolster my reviewership. I'm not about B.S.) The encouragement to use better ICs is not fluff. I have compared them against inexpensive ICs and they are vastly superior to cheap ICs, and preferable to the Audio Sensibility double ICs. However, one must consider the cost differential. Celander has been using the HAVE Inc. dual Canaire StarQuad manufactured ICs, and I discussed this aspect of inexpensive cables in my article. I think the skeptics should read my article at dagogo.com if they have not, because some of these potential misperceptions will be addressed. Now, to the community: Hopefully our skeptics will begin to see that I have no agenda to fool you. I have no agenda to be in cahoots with someone to get them sales. I am fleshing out something I discovered and others are along for the ride. This is a seminal event that many are finding incredible - in a good way! The reason I'm discussing it in the cables/science forum is that it seems to defy conventional theory. Why? How? I have no idea, and neither do the users and manufacturers. So, does that mean it's hokum? TRY it. The track record is that you also will accept it, despite not knowing how it works. I am pursuing a patent after a user of Schroeder Method suggested that I should benefit from it. I think I have commented on that publicly previously. At this point the only benefit I have had are four pair of loaned manufactured double ICs (2 RCA and 2 XLR) and some Y-cables from Audio Sensibility for the article. That's it. I'm spending more in terms of my time cost than "it's worth" trying to get through to people, because I have a zeal for audio and this IS worth discovering. Do I someday want to benefit financially from this? Yes, but a potential patent is years away, is by no means a sure thing, and any financial gain is even less assured and even further off, and it seems I will have to put in a fair bit of my own time and potentially capital, too, before ever seeing a dime. So, at this time I have just about zero for all my efforts and potentially great expenditure of time with no guarantee of benefit financially. Just how is that bilking people? So, why would I even do this? You should hear it. BTW, I'm not paid to review at dagogo.com either. That's another major misnomer. My hourly "wage" when I get a discount on a component is such that most of you would never work for that kind of rate. I did the numbers and it's wretched. I basically have given away thousands of dollars of my time to aid the community. The reason I keep doing it is that I'm very into variety of gear and systems, and love exploration of them. Why not write at the same time? Now, skeptics, you can scour this post and seek to discredit me for minutia or perceived inconsistencies, or you can take what I have shared at face value for your benefit and run with it. At this point no skeptics have volunteered to try Schroeder Method. I'll bet several others are behind the scenes, and I hope they will come forward. So, skeptics, are you going to try? Frankly, Imo this is the best potentially lower cost improvement to a stereo rig you will ever be handed. So, I think you should stop being pissed off/disgusted with me and try it. So, what about my question in regard to analogue? How does it materially/methodologically differentiate itself from cables? how does the overwhelmingly subjective field of Vinyl related audiophilia escape the same condemnation as cables? TURNTABLES ARE TONE CONTROLS! LOL WHERE'S THE BEEF? ;) |
Prof, no, I am saying there appears to be no measurable, objective basis for cultivation of an analogue rig. I see that the same largely subjective assessment is used by analogue lovers in their use and consumerism as cable users. My concern is not at all with the topic of distinction between signals/sound quality of analogue vs digital.
To the community; I come to you as the Analogue Skeptic. I have a few doubts about Vinyl. Please entertain my questions. BTW, realize that I have nothing against vinyl at all. I just have something against stilted logic and bullying using "science" as a bludgeon.
My agenda in the past few posts is to defend the epistemology of aftermarket cable use by comparison to the epistemology of analogue, which I find rests upon the same assumptions and methods as cables, but is deemed legit and never questioned as being unscientific. I am exposing what I see as widespread hypocrisy in the audiophile community among those who use highly subjective assessment to "know" that their selections of equipment for analogue is legit, but mock the selections of cable fans, manufacturers, dealers, etc. as pseudo-scientific, a sham, foolish, etc. I think the white hot spotlight of assessment can be turned upon analogue.
The implications of this comparison are profound, and I have drawn up some questions that I never see (I admit I don't watch the analogue forum, so I might be blind to a raging debate existing in the community, but I suspect not. Again, if I am wrong, I am open to being educated about that.) discussed around here, namely just how do analogue fans know that they are correct in their assessment of all things Vinyl? (I am at this time taking a focused approach; I suspect that I would find a similar basis for critique among analogue tape fans.) Do these kind of questions ever appear in the Digital forum? Perhaps so. If so, I would appreciate being told, "That's been discussed forever..."
But, if so, why is there not a more tempered criticism of aftermarket cables?
This topic is no mere diversion, but a serious question that begs to be weighed. Why is it, at least from my perspective, that Analogue as a sector of this hobby is given a pass, never critically assessed in terms of cost, motivation of the manufacturers, senility of the hobbyists who seem to be rabid about its use, etc. Cables are raked over the coals mercilessly, but I find pretty much the same assumptions and habits of the analogue fan as compared to cable fans.
So, what gives? Do we have a pervasive double standard at work here? Are analogue fans hypocritical in their assault on aftermarket cables, while a casual assessment of the situation would yield a conclusion that they are twice as much a son of hell as cable believers? Have the analogue fans condemned aftermarket cable users as "unscientific" and a laughingstock while they do the same multiple times over with plinth, footers or isolation devices, tone arms, cartridges, motors and drive belts, phono cables, phono preamps, etc. - all adjudged by opinion!
The only measurement I see discussed is related to table rpms. I think I also see measurements occasionally regarding table stability, elimination of vibration. I see a Grand Canyon sized hole in regard to meaningful data pertaining to analogue and comparison of one product to another. I see claims, I don't see measurements, you know, the science stuff. Frankly, I think there is more substantiation offered for cables by manufacturers than analogue products mentioned above. Shall we start questioning the motives of the manufacturers? Perhaps we should begin ridiculing analogue lovers as pursuing their own fantasies. Why not? The activity seems precisely the same as what cable users do.
What defense would be offered by analogue fans? "Open your ears and listen! What, are you DEAF?" Subjective. If they go that direction with a defense, then they affirm that they have no scientific basis in assessment, but largely subjective, non-scientific. Aftermarket cable users are mercilessly ridiculed for such answers. What other answer can analogue fans give to such criticism when it is turned on them?
So, as to the motivation and cost structure of analogue, the questions would be endless, as I have outlined a few above. When assessed epistemologically, is there any basis for condemning cables as contributing to the demise of the high end, while praising analogue for its contribution to revival of the high end? What if the relentless harangue of turntable users is unwittingly driving away people while they employ� identical methods as cable fans? What precisely is so scientific about analogue? I find there is more unscientific about it than what I do in comparison of cables. I can compare sets of cables. Who compares entire analogue setups? A cartridge is changed, a tone arm is changed, exactly like a cable is changed. A subjective assessment happens, exactly as with cables. AND CABLE USERS ARE MOCKED FOR THEIR METHODS WHILE ANALOGUE USERS DO THE MOCKING? Shouldn't the hubris of the one who does this be pegged at 10+?
Where's the science in analogue? What measurements accompany their assessment? Is it all subjective? Why, then, mock a cable user for their subjective assessment? How is the assessment of the tone arm or cartridge not as ludicrous, devoid of "science"?
How can a person be an analogue fan and not see how hypocritical they are when they mock cable fans? I believe many cable skeptics are analogue fans because they believe they can set up a superior sounding rig for less money. Is that borne out by measurements? Is that not a purely subjective assessment? Can a $1K analogue rig outdo a $30K analogue rig? Why is this seemingly not a raging debate in audio? Have our analogue lovers done ABX between a cheap analogue setup and an expensive one in their room? Have they subjected their hobby to the same searing criticism they level at cables?
Who is going to say THE ANALOGUE KING HAS NO CLOTHES?
WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF ANALOGUE? Anyone?
(Sincerely, I do not wish to be blind in condemnation of the epistemology of the hobby of analogue. If my assessment is erroneous, and the comparisons forced, then please discuss and enlighten me. I think it is a discussion worth having among us.)
Which of our analogue loving cable skeptics is going to try Schroeder Method? |
I'm starting to think all the analogue believers owe Schroeder Method a try.
Analogue-believing cable skeptics, where are you?
Don't we see more attempted explanation and measurement for cables than analogue rigs. I've not seen typically any measurements in relation to constituent components of turntables. Perhaps the entirety of home analogue is non-scientific.
Do we have stringent evidence to the contrary?
Is this a speck and log situation? Perhaps. What arguments of the objective analysis of analogue home process can be martialed?
Well, perhaps I have a point worth discussing. I am open to enlightenment. |
Jim, thanks. Nice to have civility and perhaps growing respect between us. :)
|
I have made my two emphases clear;
1. Analysis of epistemology of analogue compared to cables, with inquiry of just how do they differ, and if they do not differ substantially, what justification do cable skeptics have to suggest aftermarket cables are not scientific?
2. Invitation to cable skeptics to try Schroeder Method, with thorough discussion and clarification of the method, cost structure and my motivations.
Anyway, I do not have a schedule that permits unbridled participation, so I'll pull back for now. If anyone wishes to discuss or offer to try Schroeder Method, I can chime in. :)
Jim, I am enjoying getting to know you and value our exchanges. :)
|
Jim, I'm glad I took the time to chat further and earn your trust enough for you to try it. I look forward to your input. :)
I am going to contact you via PM system.
|
Ok, let's give some credit where credit is due; Jim has said here he will try Schroeder Method, and I think that is an impressive gesture of willingness to humble one's self.
As a former cable skeptic I know the difficulty in humbling one's self to try something that you think is 1. Ineffective, 2. wasteful, 3. Just plain stupid. It takes a willingness to test one's skepticism, a willingness to humble one's self to try.
In other words, one has to be willing to admit their inexperience in a particular matter might not lead to the correct conclusion. So, let's back off of piling on Jim. He has now shown that despite his tremendous lack of confidence in it, he is willing to openly entertain the possibility that he could be wrong. That is far more than most skeptics are willing to do, so I applaud Jim for that.
cd318, you are still skeptical. Are you willing to test your skepticism? A person who is unwilling to test their skepticism is trapped in their current experience even though observational evidence exists that much better can be obtained. You do not know if you are right or wrong. You think you are right, which is of marginal significance in the face of people who are trying and finding it efficacious. Are you willing to try Schroeder Method and find out?
|
Prof, thank you for your response. I used a thorough, but simple comparison, so your first conclusion was correct when you said:
"IF you mean to level charges of hypocrisy and inconsistency in the audiophile world, you will certainly find large targets. Especially in the subjective-oriented audiophile world.
So if you want to say: "I evaluate whether cables make a difference by putting them in my system and seeing if I hear a difference. How can YOU be critical of me if that’s how YOU evaluate the rest of your analog system!"
And if this is your charge....I completely agree with you; there would be a lot of hypocrisy.
And I would say both sides (you and the people you are calling hypocritical) are using a suspect methodology for gaining reliable knowledge."
I think there are a lot of hypocritical analogue users out there, who condemn aftermarket cables while employ�ing similar principles and methods to affirm their analogue. I am not interested at all here, as I believe I said previously, in the digital/analogue debate.
It seems to me that there does not exist an environment where the home audiophile can overcome the inability to operate from a purely scientific, objective basis. I would peg all audiophiles as being suspect of some form of bias, subjectivity, etc. myself included. I have a bias against cable skeptics. ;)
Wait! I was a cable skeptic at one time! LOL :)
|
glupson, thank you for your reasonable discussion. I have tried most of the attempts that you have, and imo the Schroeder Method is more profound in effect than any of them.
You have chosen a zero sum position, and I can respect that, as you seem to realize that an absolutist position will cut you out of any potential benefit. Others see the low cost/effort to trial as worth a try.
|
glupson, just a mild point to interject. I'm not interested in jousting with you verbally. I find that is not productive for us, nor the community. There is a range, a spectrum of performance, you might agree. A panoply of words can be used to describe the spectrum, and related comparisons. I attempt to choose well, carefully so as to not be sensationalist or be accused of hyping products. The spectrum of performance is - using nifty, striking adjectives - humongous, nearly galactic (Those skeptics who disagree will, no doubt, think I'm being foolish and sensational). So, the range of descriptors imo has to be broad. Funny how typically when someone describes a sound/product as "poor" they are not ridiculed, for in truth most gear is not poor, but lesser than others. Words like "awful," "cold" etc. are used and they are every bit as extreme. Some even will claim that a relative sound was "broken" in comparison. They don't think twice about the fairly irresponsible way in which they have described the product, but when an exclamation of joy is uttered that suddenly becomes a lie. Something to think about. :) Trust is the issue here, as with all claims of nouveau items/methods, etc. I attempt not to damage my reputation, or "trust factor" with the community by making foolish or boated claims. Now, the Schroeder Method is imo, and the opinion of most others who have tried it, an outsized result - the outcome is "shocking", "spectacular", etc. But it still comes down to one thing; it either works to some degree or not. Perhaps skeptics can get past raging about descriptions of its degree of efficacy as described by others, and focus on the either/or of the science, as is the topic of the thread.
To the community: Now, as to the sought evidence, I am reminded of a jury trial in which I sat as foreman of the jury. There was plenty of circumstantial evidence imo to convict the defendant. However, some on the jury wanted nothing less than forensic evidence, and they would not accept even a powerful suite of circumstantial evidence. (Really showed me how scary it would be to have a jury deciding my future!). A person here determines whether circumstantial evidence is acceptable, and how much is necessary. I suggest the descriptors be less important than the question of whether it works. I think the lower potential cost and ease of trying it should outweigh displeasure with perception of too fawning descriptions of its effect. Everyone is after the amazing, super-low cost method, tweak, etc. Here it is, and it is railed against; go figure. Basically, the skepticism also stems from a "too good to be true" perspective. Ones who use it and claim it's wonderful are unhinged, not in touch with reality, etc. That conclusion does protect one's foregone conclusion, however it precludes you ever benefitting, which could happen if you open up the slightest file for "Possible Error Re: Schroeder Method" in your mind. :) For some, on any given topic, their doubt and confidence are absolute. Ok, so be it. I can accept that. What I cannot accept is mockery by those who think they know, who refuse to try, and defensiveness when there is a strong reaction to their put-downs of others. What else would you expect when you verbally bully, make a joke of others? I stopped this cold on this thread by my question of epistemology of analogue; it shut everyone up. Why? Because we all know it's true. The hypocrites had nothing to say, because they saw themselves clearly in the mirror perhaps for the first time. But, that wasn't wanted. Rather, the fighting, the insulting, etc. That's what some want here. I do not want that. I refuse to participate in that. I want progress on audio systems. The skeptics are encouraged to join me by trying Schroeder Method. But, at least if you aren't going to try, bridle your caustic mockery. And, likewise, perhaps our users will find the confidence to not reply in kind. Anyway, some are comfortable with circumstantial evidence (i.e. observation by several users), and others demand a hard forensic explanation (measurements). I can respect both positions and I think the community should as well. Name calling resolves nothing in regard to the level of evidence someone considers necessary. That is why I engaged in discussion with Jhills versus derision. Now, we are chatting and becoming friends. He is going to try the Schroeder Method, though he doubts it will work. I applaud his willingness to test his doubt. I do think Schroeder Method in some ways is an ideal acid test of the convergence of exploration of cables and theory, as the result imo seems to fly in the face of theory. By that I do not mean a change in effect would not be expected, as though I or other users are not scientific, but that the expected theoretical outcome is not the result. At least not in any instance to date that I am aware of. Distilling this down; I find a chasm that cannot be breached between those comfortable with circumstantial evidence (observational science) and those demanding forensic evidence (hard/measured science). So, imho, the disparity will never be settled. Revisiting my observation that I find all audiophiles to operate with bias, the two together ensure that there will be many such threads in the future. But, Schroeder Method could change all that! LOL Is that hyperbolic enough for our skeptics? ;) So, which of our skeptics will try Schroeder Method besides jhills? Man, here I am again spending too much time. I'm outta here for now.
|
Prof, testing for power cord was with system identical throughout, using two identical stereo amps, and different power cords on amps. Only variable is power cord on amp.
blupson, I like that! Good joke! What was the phrase years ago, "Four door, on the floor..." |
Prof, yes; I voluntarily reviewed AVA's ABX Comparator (review is found at dagogo.com) with the express intent of 1. Seeing what an unusual device it is and how I would appreciate it, and 2. ABXing my ability to discern various products. I was aware that I was putting my "reviewer's credentials" on the line with one form of assessment. I did the testing with it and passed solidly (i.e. 8 or 9 of ten in most trials) on every genre of gear tested except power amps. (The article discusses the results, and reveals that post-mortem I learned that I had similar results to AVA. I figure that if I can pass ABX, which was not easy, I can tell if there is a much more obvious difference with Schroeder Method. So, yes, I think I have a good basis to discern a difference with Schroeder Method when I passed challenging ABX with power cords, ICs and SCs.
Suspicion is like inverse infatuation. :) |
BTW, I did NOT invite NASA to my testing. ;)
|
prof, yes, I was able to discern power cables as well. I will not pretend I have super hearing. The cables were not easy at all to discern at matched level. They seemed much closer in sound characteristics when ABX and matched level than when in normal use. But, the ABX was testing one leg of cabling, not the entire set. I was successful at identifying power cords with high percentage of accuracy, whereas amplifiers I could not. Frank Van Alstine and I had a wonderful conversation about that only after the review, so as to not introduce any bias. That's when I learned that at AVA the amps were the only parts of the system they could not ABX well, i.e. get significantly greater than 50% identification, either. Our results, though unknown to us at the time of the review, were parallel.
That puts an exclamation point on the results, I'd say!
Will that change many skeptics' minds? Probably not. Some people have incredible faith in their doubt. :( |
Now to go listen to this new preamp under review; it's INCREDIBLE! It blows the doors off all the others! The sound is AMAZING. It is 50% BETTER than anything out there...
But not as good as Schroeder Method. LOL ;)
|
rocknss, it's been quite a while since I did that review, and not all the trials made it into the article. I do not recall switching the power cords on the amps. I do recall conducting more than one comparison between power cords on the amps. These were identical amps that I had used ongoing for some time. I believe that if there were an audible issue with inconsistency with the amps it would have been manifested through putting up many systems. My response would be thus; IF a variation in sound between the amps existed, and if it was not audible during normal use, why would it be expected to be audible during ABX? The odds are much more in favor of the power cords themselves being the cause of the sound differences, especially when I consistently had sonic changes due to cables such as IC and SC as well. OTOH, what was surprising and significant was that when power cords to amps were identical I was unable to be successful in more than about 50% identification between amps that were level matched. It even held true with SS vs. tubed amps, as you can read in the article. That was unexpected and to me seems the more noteworthy result. In other words, I succeeded in identification of power cords, but failed at identification of amps. I never would have expected that result. However, as I explain in the article I do not believe the result applies directly to real world system building. Anyway, yours is a good question. To eliminate any possibility of influence of the amp, swapping the power cords would have been a good idea. However, I believe the circumstantial evidence shows that the likelihood of the amp being the cause of the differences in sound is very small. It is obvious that I am not a lab tech, so my procedure was not perfect. However, I do not believe that negates the results. YMMV, and though I am happy to provide an answer, I do not intend on arguing/debating it. :) |
I will be interested when jhills reports back on his discovery in trying Schroeder Method ICs. When I spoke with him he indicated that he had the interconnects and would only need connectors. Some are not impressed by the use of connectors such as splitters or Y-cables, as though that would obviate any potential gain. That is not so; all users who have used splitters and Y-cables hear a marked improvement in their system. The skeptics are speculating on that point. I have invited them continuously to put their doubt to the test, but as we can see many of them hold their opinions with absolute certainty. That’s a great way to cement a rig in current performance, eschewing potential wonderful improvements. That kind of attitude gave rise to my byline, "The greatest impediment to developing an audiophile system is the audiophile." The reason I initially (now, I’m experiencing at least one brand of manufactured double IC - anyone else care to make and send to me for trial?) used assembled ones is for convenience, proof of concept vs. making/buying, and to see if the benefit could overcome the inefficiency/deterioration that comes with splitters/Y-cables. Also, assembled Schroeder Method cables are very easy and quick to reduce to a single IC for comparison. That is ideal in such situations. It’s the cheapest, fastest way to get to comparisons. And for that some are dismissing Schroeder Method. I use a sensible approach that doesn’t cost a lot, and it’s written off. That’s typical skeptics for you. Operate as they would and the method gets condemned for it. But, if I were to say it is only efficacious if one buys manufactured models of it, then they would fuss about the cost, I’m in cahoots with the makers, etc. Self-confidence and doubt like to operate from both sides of the coin - that way skepticism seemingly cannot lose. I do not give much credence to arguments that say merely rising from a chair, or replacing a cable nullify a comparison. It is easy for me to hear the differences. Then again, I am doing this in a custom room with about 8dB less noise level than typical quiet room in a home, and the characteristics of a mastering studio. Likely your room is not better. Just another reason why, Imo, skeptics are in no position to declare what I can and cannot hear in that room. :) |
Elizabeth, I invite you to try it; then we may not be able to get you to shut up about it. :)
If you have a better cable method or technology that pertains to the question of this thread, "The Science of Cables," feel free to promote/discuss it at length. Schroeder Method pertains directly to this conversation because 1. it involves cables, 2. It is nouveau, 3. It is imo testable informally, and I presume at this point formally, 4. It is not understood theoretically, and 5. It was in existence prior to this thread and was already amassing instances of success - in fact, to this point only success, i.e. no negative outcomes.
Aside from the arguing on this thread, I see little other objective ways to DO something to propel understanding and discussion productively forward. Perhaps some would rather rant and moan about others, but I am proposing a simple and imo quite effective means of opening up discussion not excluding or damning skeptics, but welcoming them to the party.
How’s that for a different approach? Instead of vilifying them I am inviting them. Note the thin response to those invitations so far. That, sadly, is to be expected when working with people who absolutely trust their intuition, whether it’s right or wrong. The multiple targeted invitations met with silence mostly are evidence imo that skeptics are not as interested in doing anything to challenge their own beliefs, but are more interested in attempting to overwhelm cable users with theory. That’s not going to work too well when the results are so easily heard. Whatever.
I know, I used to be a hard core cable skeptic.
Something tells me that if you had developed Schroeder Method you would be talking about it every bit as much as I do. Like when you got your system instead of buying a car - you couldn’t be shut up, endless chatter about it. It was nauseatingly monotonous, and imo you made some claims that I didn’t think were supportable, but I didn’t blame you for it, because it is wonderful when you discover something new. (Perhaps most of that was on Audioasylum, but I quit going there years ago.) So, forgive me if I enthuse quite a bit, because the double IC is something important, and germane to the thread.
An interesting piece of history, Elizabeth - I remember years ago on this site that you were quite lukewarm yourself about aftermarket cables. Finally, you tried and what do you think happened? Your attitude changed with experience. You are quite a different audiophile now than even five years ago.
Do you think I am unaware of how frequently I have invited people to try it? I have been building a case that shows right here the M.O. of skeptics. Slash and burn tactics with cables, but wait! An inexpensive, easy to do, purportedly quite significant means, an opportunity to either falsify or support their contentions - and only 1 is willing to try. THAT is the point of my multiple invitations to particular skeptics. They are proving right here how closed-minded they can be. Yet, it’s not too late if they want to show they are not entrenched.
I used to think I was so sharp, laughing at aftermarket cable fans for their stupidity at spending ridiculous amounts on cables... I have quite a story to tell about prejudging situations. The incident that opened up reviewing to me happened precisely because I chose not to arrogantly prejudge a speaker. That’s a story for another time...
Congratulations again to jhills, the only one who was willing to be open to questioning his interpretation of the situation and try Schroeder Method.
Elizabeth, thank you for sharing your opinion, and now that it has been voiced, I trust you won’t need to state it again. Please know that I have no desire whatsoever to enter into lengthy discussion about this post. :)
|
Bright yellow.
glupson, so, do you consider yourself a cable agonstic (undetermined, or qualified participant in regards to the question of efficacy of aftermarket cables) or an adherent to one side or the other?
|
I think it is very helpful to the community to see further into the thinking processes of skeptics such as glupson and aftermarket cable proponents such as myself. :)
Please refrain from continued comments about weapons. I find it offensive. My brother in law was murdered 30+ years ago and the case never solved. No justice was brought by man, but I trust it will by God in due time. I saw what the havoc did to my sister, so I don't think it' so funny to joke about weapons with subtext.
|
Apologies accepted all around. No issues. None of us is perfect, etc. :)
|
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, 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.
|
bsimpson, would you like to try Schroeder Method of Interconnect Placement? It likely would be more efficacious than your selection of speaker cables and would also likely be something your audio friends would appreciate. Not a hint of any, "very advanced anti-EMF nano snake oil helix structure that would take 10000 hours to break in," because, like you, I'm not into wasting my time and money.
|
