AC Filtering, Grounding Boxes, Linear PSU and Balanced Power.

[YashN]

rather to model the behavior of transistors you can use LTSpice models ... and believe me, with this approach, and selecting from a variety of parts, you can go very far in modeling how changes in x,y or z might affect the audio signal. IMHO it's a lot easier to predictably affect SQ by changing amplifier topology than by changing the stuff that's wrapped around wires.

 

No doubt here either, but we were specifically talking about the case above with Gabriel's isolation chambers or plates arrangement and some ensuing effects that he himself couldn't find in the simulation nor could explain.

 

This is where it is probably a matter of the scale of the model as mentioned by Sam.

 

I don't think I'm ever going to simulate these anytime soon, but for an overview or for a higher-level understanding it could have been interesting to know.

[YashN]

Get some copper plates, Rochelle salts and Silica gel -- mix the salts evenly with the gel (beads) and place between the copper plates. Seal the arrangement. connect it however you think. Let us know how it sounds

 

Who said I hadn't already considered something like that? I know what the material used is and exactly how it is used in the isolation chamber and how the latter is constructed (it's not a plate anymore).

 

Since then, I found another set of very interesting materials to work with as well, except I don't yet know if they are commonly available.

 

[YashN]

This looks a little more like what Sam Lord was describing:

 

Patent US8658892 - Ferroelectric field coupling device for improved noise reduction in AC power ... - Google Patents

 

This is exactly it actually.

[YashN]

The equipment design of the recent gravity wave experiment

 

There are a few outstanding questions for you earlier in this thread.

[YashN]

First of all, I need to correct an earlier statement. I said, "Caelin professed that he didn't understand quite why they worked so effectively, but believed that quantum effects were at play."

 

What he actually said, at a *private* meeting, was that quantum effects *might* be involved. He has never, to my knowledge, made any claim of quantum effects in his products. Your use of the term "malarky" is rude and uninformed.

 

Furthermore, in our partnership Caelin never mentioned the NSA. Had he performed almost any work for the NSA, he would be legally prohibited from claiming that for many years after service. Nevertheless, others have said it, and in such cases he is not obligated to deny it.

 

My thought about stardust had nothing to do with quantum mechanics, it was simply a marketing idea.

 

It was pretty clear to me that neither Gabriel's prior work at the NSA nor Quantum Theory are mentioned in their marketing, and it was additionally quite clear what you meant by the anectode on FeSi, so no worries. Maybe Jabbr misunderstood as he's in a lot of simultaneously and interesting projects these days

 

Thanks for the additional info, it does look like in the patent he focuses on the electrical field and how losses are induced from there.

 

I was also thinking of the magnetic field component and the impedance to high frequency content. Maybe the missing explanation can be found there.

[YashN]

If the effect is real, which it certainly might be, I've suggested a way that you could measure. Piezoelectric effects are eminently measurable, as is background noise. This is all conventional electronics.

 

That part is already known.

 

Sam and I were talking about the unknown part, which Gabriel himself couldn't explain at the time.

[YashN]

I am sorry if you are offended but I stand by my description of the effects of, as you describe "stardust" on cables as being possibly a "quantum effect" as such. No personal offense, honestly. Its just that no actual scientist would describe anything this way, as there is no generic "quantum effect", rather I get the impression this term is being used to impress that there is some type of magic that is not understandable by mere civilians.

 

Except nobody is trying to impress anybody here: Sam only recounted an anecdote about Gabriel for the part of his device for which the latter didn't have the phenomena explained completely for his simulations and how he (Gabriel) expressed himself about it at the time.

 

So there's no malarky involved in any form whatsoever here.

 

Hence Sam being offended, and he's right to be.

[YashN]

... and to really understand how Saran wrap works at a fundamental level you need to understand quantum physics nonetheless my leftovers safely made it into the fridge this evening.

 

That's correct and it's also true that cellular automata on a computer with one cell representing a tree can model the spread of forest fires.

 

However, that does not mean you couldn't learn an additional thing or two by knowing how air travels for instance.

 

In other words, we have a lot of macroscopic models and equations and they work well, that's fine.

 

On the other hand, there are some microscopic and quantic models which can be interesting too.

 

There is a subject called micromagnetics which is quite interesting (the equations aren't by Maxwell here).

 

Now, for the discussion of this thread, we're not trying to necessarily find Quantum explanations along the way, it is to gain some understanding as expounded in the original post.

 

However, if we do come across some Quantum explanations along the way and if they can explain something, then why not.

 

No such explanations was given anywhere in this thread, so there's no need to get all defensive about anything Quantic.

 

In this particular case, I believe there could be something to explore for greater-than-quantic scale along the lines of large impedance to high frequency content but with the magnetic component. However, it's not too clear to me yet because what I do know necessitates a small direct current field and it appears that it the NIC we have an AC induced field, unless I'm making a basic mistake here.

[YashN]

If 'we' can measure gravity waves, we can measure any real audio signal

 

If something:

a) isn't measurable

b) isn't explainable

c) isn't part of my religion

 

it doesn't exist to me. I have enough work trying to explain measurements and measure explanations

 

Who said it can't be measured?

[YashN]

Over this week-end, seeing how the iPad + VNC to Mathematica running on the Raspi was too slow and impractical, I tried Mathematica directly on the Raspi connected to the HDTV.

 

Well, it appears my efforts were thwarted: the Raspi Model B isn't fast enough to deal with Mathematica evaluations of notebooks.

 

Now, there might have been a way had Mathematica been optimised to use the Raspi's GPU, but until then, we're stuck.

 

It appears I can fall back to using the Mathematica CLI and even pipe the results to a graphing application too.

 

So that seems to be my recourse for now.

 

Another idea would be to use the Raspbian distribution through a virtual machine. It necessitates QEMU so that sorts appears to preclude an easy way of using Mac OS X.

[YashN]

It uses Finite Element Modeling. Managed to get it to work through WINE, but only the 32-bit version, which is fine.

 

 

Here you can see some Flux density simulation results for a radial magnet. This is running through WINE on Mac OS X.

[YashN]

First, thanks to Yashn who has fairly stated what he read!

 

Well, the action of the bulk FeSi made sense for both the electrical and magnetic fields, but the behavior of the plates was the challenge. Just very pure, thick, polished copper of a certain shape was necessary, but it exceeded expectations.

 

While the transfer function of a Hydra was not anything you could easily approximate analytically, it was quite drastic. It brought up perceived level by around 2dB and often caused walls to newly shake with no change in the level set. This from a passive device with almost negligible reactance.

 

No prob., Sam. Hope this is all cleared up between you two so that we can go on to the non-personal and interesting stuff.

 

Speaking of plates, here was my thinking initially for my AC Filter box:

 

I would have one single copper plate for the common ground underneath the filter lines as this would be a proper ground plane versus wires connected to a rail.

 

This ground plane would also be used to connect to a set of chassis grounding binding posts in the same box.

 

Now, I was also thinking of integrating the Signal 'grounding' technology in the Entreq within the same box instead of making two boxes. And since the Entreq uses a plate, I was then thinking of using two such plates.

 

Thing is, if I use the two plates in close proximity, there may be some unwanted interaction (or at least that's how I view it) which I would like to avoid, so here I thought that perhaps using sufficiently large distance between these two plates could be helpful.

 

An alternative would be to set up two cylindrical chambers, one for each, and isolate these.

 

In this configuration, I lose the traditional ground planes, so perhaps if I implement them this way, I need to think of a good way to make a hierarchical and symmetrical star-grounding scheme. [On second thought this needs some more thinking as I certainly don't want to make a ground loop available here].

 

What do you think, are these good ideas?

[YashN]

I worked on a litigation in the late 80s-early 90s where one of our engineering experts was using the first PC version of FEA (finite element analysis) software.

 

I have found another very interesting software in OpenModelica today:

 

OPENMODELICA is an open-source Modelica-based modeling and simulation environment intended for industrial and academic usage.

[YashN]

1) When you use the term "massive increases in instantaneous current", this means a corresponding massive decrease in output impedance (entirely measurable)

2) Noise attenuation is similarly measurable.

 

These are the symptoms. What's being talked about here are the root causes and measurements of the modeling and real implementations thereof (of the root cause, not the symptoms).

[YashN]

Thevenin circuit analysis demonstrate that the minimum impedance of a power distribution network is determined by the point of maximal series impedance (the exact definition http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/acthev.html#c2) and so the only way to reduce impedance is to place a parallel capacitance. This is to say that according to extremely well accepted physics, the way to increase maximal instantaneous current is with capacitance. An excellent and classic description: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521370957/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_40KbxbNGM6XNG

 

Now this could be interesting to really understand what's going on.

[YashN]

There are different types of power supplies each with different advantages. When reducing power supply output impedance is a primary concern, a capacitance multiplier circuit is a consideration eg: Capacitance Multiplier Power Supply Filter, and http://www.edn.com/Pdf/ViewPdf?contentItemId=4422750

 

Very interesting stuff as I am reading a lot about power supplies and toying with some circuits with the view of making my own low-noise Linear Power Supply.

 

These circuits though look quite different from what Gabriel does - his 'circuit' or rather chamber isn't connected between GND and + or GND and -, but just in parallel with GND only so I'm not sure how it applies directly.

 

Maybe there are some capacitance considerations within his chamber arrangement that could relate to the Thevenin circuit you mentioned above.

[YashN]

As jabbr's pointed out, whether one goes all the way to quantum mechanics for the root cause or sticks with previous theory, Maxwell's equations model the behavior very nicely, which allows what must occur to cause a "massive increase[] in instantaneous current" to be predicted with exactitude. The questions then would be (1) what if anything there might be in the conditions described by the patent that would fulfill the necessary requirements; and (2) if someone has one of the patented boxen and can measure this massive increase.

 

And as I have mentioned previously, not necessarily Maxwell, but there could be explanations in the micromagnetics domain too. And perhaps closer to the macro domain, any losses related to the magnetic field and a radical increase in impedance there and not just the electric field as mentioned in the patent. Not many people know about this effect as it's quite new, and personally, I can visualise it within the context of a DC field and a single alloy connector, but so far find it hard to visualise clearly within the context of the NIC.

 

What exists in the patent is the following:

- the chamber,

- the parallel connection,

- the material,

- the induced fields therein,

- the E appears to be catered for in terms of explanation

 

but no details about the B given.

 

If the explanation can then inform a design, then that would be awesome. I'm not too concerned about it though because in this thread and quite early, I did a very, very rudimentary form of signal 'grounding' which added to the other enhancements (AC Filter box + Chassis Grounding) gave us the very best sound we ever have heard here.

 

So, in the end, I'd sooner just build a couple of NICs or just two grounding planes (or any combination thereof) rather than forever try to find explanations and measure them (I have no reason to doubt the 'massive increase in instantaneous current' nor will I let any measurement here distract me) because if I got results with my very rudimentary solution, then it means that just the impedance matching or 'external grounding' was a worthy goal at least in my modest system (YYMV).

 

For info (already somewhere in a past post in this thread), the rudimentary solution was just using flat braided cables to a small hollow copper tube: I had the plan of building a proper NIC with it, but this time all I did as a first test was just connect the braided cables (one to my amp, one to my DAC).

 

Now, you can imagine just what a proper Shunyata (or similar) solution or a proper NIC or two could do (here again in my system).

 

In other words, I view this arrangement as the following:

[impedance Matching] + [Cleanup due to E field] + [Cleanup due to B field, potentially]

 

with each adding incremental (but not necessarily small) gains.

[YashN]

Yes

 

Just build this and then you can measure to your heart's content:

 

 

NB: even after building this, you'll only be measuring the symptoms (ah wait, no actually, you could even make some input-output correlations with this).

[YashN]

It would have been very interesting to access the Shunyata white paper and articles about DTCD. IIRC there was a block diagram of the DTCD Analyzer.

 

I am not sure I ever read the whitepaper. The whitepapers have since been removed from the site and in the meantime the 'coming soon' for whitepapers on the site have been there for a good while now.

[YashN]

I haven't followed your project very closely, curious about what circuit you're working on. I'll look at it when I get time. I have comments on the power treatment you're eyeing, but am too tied up now to really examine it.

 

As the thread is packed with info (still worthwhile to read through, taking care to avoid the crap posted by Daudio and One and a Half, and side-stepping some of the less helpful posts by Speedskater and sticking to his other very helpful resources), here's a quick summary:

 

- Probably Post #1 is good to read as starting point, namely I was looking to just build an AC Filter box, but then along the way, many more questions arose spanning the audio system view.

 

- I started with a Jon Risch Filter design, which is quite simple and using ferrite rods

 

- Then I read about some of Lukasz Ficus's iterations

 

- My own circuit is similar to Lukasz's but I avoid a couple of things he integrated in his

 

- There's also a parallel circuit by Thorsten Loesch in the thread

 

- My own Filter box continuously wants to grow

 

- Researching the matter brought us to discuss Grounding/Chassis Grounding and signal 'grounding', especially in the Tripoint and Entreq devices, as well as Balanced Power, Isolation Transformers, Balanced Interconnects, etc...

 

- I wanted to inform the design of my AC Filter box on a pure Engineering/Science perspective (i.e. no consideration for budget/business/marketing side issues)

 

- Other designs that I looked into: the Steve McCormack device, and Caelin's devices

 

- I want to integrate the Chassis grounding in my AC Filter box (easy), as well as the signal 'grounding' (easy to do but not easy to integrate IMO). Imagine for simplification that we are mainly externalising the ground plane and the signal ground plane of our equipment into that single box: the question becomes how to integrate these two plates in my design geometrically, mechanically and electro-magnetically for the best results.

 

- As for Balanced Power and Isolation Transformers, our friends Zilch0md and lmitche have done a lot of experiments and are far ahead of me in experimenting with them.

[YashN]

Guess who managed to completely troubleshoot and repair his SET Tube Amp today? DSD256 into tubes is something - highly recommended.

 

Me.

 

This means my workshop table has now plenty of space for new projects.

[YashN]

- Then I read about some of Lukasz Ficus's iterations

 

- My own circuit is similar to Lukasz's but I avoid a couple of things he integrated in his

 

Here's Lukasz's schematics for his Silk AC Filter:

 

 

He also added some switches to selectively disconnect GND from some of the outlets for certain devices:

 

My circuit is similar to his, but has no inductor on the common ground line, and has no switches on the individual Ground to socket connections.

 

The rest of my design have parallels in the Shunyata and Steve McCormack designs.

[YashN]

YashN

Do you keep one hand in your pocket when measuring those nasty HT voltages ? (grin)

 

This time, for troubleshooting, I had to.

 

Fortunately, all measurements went fine, a steady hand helps. Fortunately, the circuit was fine as well, probably was corrected when I replaced the Constant-Current Source, so since Sunday we're listening exclusively to my SET Tune Amp. My SS Amp, despite having much, much more power, can't compete SQ-wise with the nearly the most basic configuration of my SET Tube Amp.

 

I think if I had used SS rectification in the Tube Amp, it could qualify as the most basic configuration. I chose to do a full-tube implementation, so the rectification is also done by a tube.

[YashN]

Yes, L4 and the switch in the ground/earth line are prohibited activity.

 

We covered that ages ago in this thread.

[YashN]

Considering the audio system, where great benefits can be derived from using a dedicated line (done), balanced power (not yet explored), isolation transformers or other AC filtering, proper grounding, better power supplies and better amps, it sounds like it is a very daft thing to lose all that ability in a common weak link.

 

More and more, in my system, this weak link is nagging at my mind (as these things usually do) and it's the RCA and non balanced interconnect there.

 

Now, I just built my Single-Ended Tube Amp, so I am going to listen to this for a while, so buying a new DAC and a new Amp is not of the order of the day, because that's indeed what I would have to do to get a pure Balanced connection between these two and that would be a hefty price.

 

So, instead, what I thought about is make a pseudo-balanced connection. For this, I would have to put the DAC circuit in a larger chassis, and then use XLR connectors on it and the AMP. Thus the shield of the new balanced cable would actually be a shield, and the small signal return will then be inside that. We'll avoid the Pin 1 problem by architecting this properly as well.

 

Those small signals can be affected very easily (the proportion being big since the signals themselves are small) in the normal and flawed return-as-shield interconnects, as well as having the metal of the RCA connectors exposed to any RFI/EMI. Then we are amplifying these, together with the noise profile.