How DOES the grounding boxes work?

[esldude]

They don't work. 

 

Next!

[esldude]

They do work.  Tremendously well.  For audiophiles looking for emotional support they are doing something to clean up their grounding and improve their system.  The money spent validates the emotional improvements.

[esldude]

28 minutes ago, Cornan said:

 

Hmm, you mean they work or not? Any clues why they work or not? ?

I mean exactly what I said.

Electrically to improve how well your gear functions, they don't work.  They will slightly degrade it.

 

As an experiential thing for audiophiles who believe in them, and don't do listening unsighted, or don't measure how things function, they work fabulously well. They also are an excellent product business-wise. 

[esldude]

Just now, Cornan said:

 

Quick question. Have you tried them IRL?

Nope. 

 

Didn't drink salamander hormones and chop off a finger to see if it would grow back either.  I guess in some people's eyes I am unqualified to speak to the effectiveness of salamander hormones or grounding boxes.

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Cornan said:

You could be one as well. If you ever try one! ?

Well if they really changed the sound, it must be a different signal getting to your speaker or headphone jacks.  Otherwise it could not sound different.  If you don't agree to this, then say so now, and I'll not bother any longer. It is okay if you do, I just have no basis of useful communication with you.

 

Now if the signal is different, how is it different?  So far the only measures I am aware of show increased noise.  Prior to seeing any measures my prediction, and those by others would have been it acts like an antenna picking up noise, or perhaps it takes current between different chassis in which case the box and rocks have nothing to do with it.  A plain wire between the gear would accomplish the same or straightening out system connections would be better.

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

Have you tried orgonite?

Or quartz? 

 

Or Rochelle salt?

 

Or bone?

 

Or silk?

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

Does that help with chemtrails?

 

Yes the proper use of quartz in cloudbuster devices are your most effective defense against chemtrails. 

 

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/237424211579540085/

 

Some of these are lots prettier than the Entreq at least.

 

[esldude]

 

 

Seeing is believing.  Solid proof the chemtrail busters work.  I believe this one is using orgonite. 

 

I am wondering about the proximity to the fir trees there.  Those are known to soak up high frequency radio.  So not sure if it interferes with or focuses the effect. 

[esldude]

30 minutes ago, Cornan said:

 

Que?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_conservation

 

wgscott normally gets paid to teach college students.  You'll need to find a high school teacher to start with high school level physics. 

 

You keep saying teach me, but you have to be willing to do your part as a student. 

 

I haven't gone thru these lessons here.  They claim to be equivalent to two terms of college level physics.  If you would like to learn for yourself give it a try, and it you find yourself lost, then maybe back up a step to something more basic.

 

http://fearofphysics.com/Videos/

 

 

[esldude]

 

 

First saw this video referenced over at http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/still-think-grounding-removes-noise.1683/

 

It is worth the 5 minutes of your time I think.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

 

Could you ask them for a technical on why the box works and what measurements they use to support their claims?

I was about to post the same thing.  

[esldude]

52 minutes ago, Cornan said:

 

This would be fine if I asked about how physics works. In this thread I would like to hear thoughts and plausible ideas how grounding boxes might work. If you are 100% sure that they do not work I just see no point why you want to post anything at all.  

I know some electronics and physics.  Not as much as some other people.  I know how this would or would not work.  Is there some explanation that doesn't involve electronics or physics?  Could be, but I do not know of it.

 

You want an explanation that doesn't involve any of the knowledge which is on firm ground. 

 

The other key piece is you are working from the assumption you know they "work".  If it does anything the way you are using it, it increases noise by working like an antenna.  If you like what it does, you like noise better than less noise.  Big super common audiophile belief which is a myth, is audiophiles automatically prefer higher fidelity playback.  Sorry, not always so. 

 

My complete and full opinion would be it increases noise in your system.  But does so at a level you cannot hear. And therefore as paradoxical as it may seem to someone who "knows it works", you actually are getting no audible consequences of the Entreq being there or not.  Don't feel bad about it.  I didn't insult you saying it is all in your head.  This is what happens to all humans.  Under the right circumstances all humans.  So unless you aren't human there is high likelihood such is the case here.  Such things and worse have sure as heck happened to me.  Multiple times. 

 

Finally ask yourself how some farmer in Norway or wherever it is from discovered the optimum version of this, and yet doesn't supply a good explanation for how it works or any measurements?  If I were such a guy I would plaster every ad with measurements showing how well it worked so no one could dispute me on it.  Such accidental discoveries are possible and do sometimes happen.  I don't think this is one of them.

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

What's happened on this thread is the same thing that happens over and over and over and over in so many threads on this site.

 

Someone that has actual first hand experience with whatever is being discussed invariably ends up confronted by virtually the same group of forum members that show up in these threads to tell him/her why what they experienced is impossible. The main similarities among this group seem to be a higher education level (at least based on reading some of their posts), an overwhelming self-assured  belief that everything in the universe can be explained by their knowledge (I'm basing this on my reading of their posts only), which for most was likely gained in some form of educational institution many years ago, anyone that disagrees with them is most likely imagining things at best, or delusional at worst and finally, and the one defining similarity, the complete lack of any actual first hand experience with what is being discussed in the thread.

 

It's this last similarity which makes their input on these threads so pathetic. For all their education, knowledge, whatever it's called, it should be obvious ( at least to me) that without first hand experience, their comments have far less relevance than any of those from those with actual first hand experience, those same people that they're attempting to refute. Just because someone doesn't understand exactly how or why something functions, doesn't mean it's impossible. Don't these people think that if everyone through the ages thought like them, most of their cherished knowledge, scientific theories, physics, etc. would have never been discovered? For all their apparent knowledge, there seems to also be an astounding closed mindedness. The true pioneers are always the ones that say "what if...", not the ones who continuously say "that's impossible".

Perhaps if they had actually tried whatever product or suggestion for themselves, then their explanations or theories would be more welcomed.

 

I do apologize to the OP for the off topic rant.

 

I don't have first hand experience of this.  I do have first hand experience of a host of similar products.  So that isn't the answer to why people point out these impossible things are impossible. 

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Owsley Stanley seemed to be able to do that (developing the monitor speaker, differential microphones, and the Wall of Sound) completely within the "ancient realm of 'electricity'.  He didn't use things like grounding boxes.

But he was an audio engineer and chemist.  He used drugs.  With drugs you don't need the grounding boxes to do the impossible. 

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

But even his most wacky, drugged-out inventions operated completely within the confines of the "ancient realm of 'electricity'.

Does the brain not work on electricity?

 

Do drugs not work on the brain?

 

Ergo ipso facto (sorry don't really know latin), do drugs not work on electricity?

 

 

 

 

 

Posted with only humorous intent. 

 

On the other hand would audiophools go for the idea that specially 'doped' electronics would have a more groovy sound.  LSD in the capacitors, a little psilocybin in the transistors,

[esldude]

14 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Hook it up to your tuner, see if you get Sveriges

Not a bad idea.  To the OP.  Do you have a tuner?  Connect a wire from the antenna connection of the tuner to the jack on the Entreq.  See how well it works. 

 

If the hinted at principles of operation are in effect, the Entreq will ground and absorb any signals the tuner needs. 

[esldude]

You can download and listen to some triboelectric noise from the above post. 

[esldude]

12 minutes ago, Cornan said:

 

Let's play with the idea that the wire works as an antenna. If the antenna drains positive ions to the tourmaline stones and gets stored there (due to equal amount of negative ions) inside the box. Is'nt that a good thing since the positive ions have no where else to go?

You need to let this go.

 

You said earlier you would settle for any explanation scientific or not.  The by far most probable explanation I gave you in the third post on this thread, the second one I posted on this thread.

 

So you are left with trying to find an explanation that sort of kind of fits with what is known about electrical behaviour only with a little something added like how ions and tourmaline stones work.  That is not how things get straightened out. 

 

Now looking at your system in your signature you are the poster child for someone who believes these ideas peddled by people who make things like the Entreq.  They have some commonalities.  Their explanations don't really make sense, their product doesn't work according to the principles upon which all your real gear is made to function.  Their explanation pretends to offer up a possible explanation that seems like it could be so if you don't know electronics.  Measurements of their products turn up either nothing or something totally different than what they claim. 

 

So please I know this sounds mean and nasty and dismissive.  You have had ample discussion you haven't accepted and continue to search for 'an answer'.  The short answer is this doesn't work.  The longer answer is you know it works for reasons having to do with psychology.  You have fooled yourself with help from others.  You'll never find a technical explanation that explains why the Entreq works because it doesn't.  Its method of functioning is not based in physical reality.  It is based in the psychological make up of the human mind.

[esldude]

26 minutes ago, Abtr said:

Did you ever try one in your designs?

He appears to be too competent for that. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

I prefer to listen to music while in a hot air balloon floating directly over the north pole, and do prefer a grounding box because earth ground is not practically available.

 

I have constructed a balloon basket whose floor is double layer of layered interspersed with tourmaline sand  

You can tell when people aren't serious.

 

The pole is where the entrance to the UFO base is.  You'll not be able to enjoy your time there unless you like being probed.    The tourmaline will not shield you from that.  They'll also recognize the difference between true anti-grav tech and heated air levitation. 

[esldude]

41 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I heard back from Entreq today. Here is our email exchange. 

 

 

 

Hello Chris.

 

Nopp

Dont know how it have been done. He anyhow don´t use any of our cables.

All cables act like antennas. If you have right length, right metal , right area etc on the cable, you can pick up the most of  signals in the air, so ................

Perhaps any of the other brands, Tripoint, CAD, Nordost etc can help.

 

Best

PO

 

From: Chris Connaker

Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 3:41 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Grounding Box Adds Noise?

 

 

Hi Guys - Someone has posted measurements of one of your grounding boxes and says it adds noise. Can you comment on this or explain why this appears to be the case?

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/34650-how-does-the-grounding-boxes-work/?page=6#comment-694618

Chris Connaker

Founder
Computer Audiophile

 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, Cornan said:

 

Considering that the Entreq grounding boxes peak their performance after 24 hrs this is will not be something I am prepared to do. It would take me and a friend 480 hrs to complete with confident result. Never mind the extra time changing the gears and the possible audio memory loss inbetween. ?

How can the memory loss in between be a problem.  Have you not said the improvement is large and unmistakable?

 

 

[esldude]

8 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

What, does the box have to get charged up or get warm or something? If the box is providing some kind of grounding, it should work right away or not at all. I can't wait to hear the explanation for this.....

Look at the reply to Chris' email inquiry.  The maker suggests you ask some other companies who make similar products.  At other times he has said too many copied his designs so he prefers not to explain how they work.  There'll be no forthcoming explanation.  Belief......that is why it works that way.....BELIEF!