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? ;)
