How DOES the grounding boxes work?

[semente]

2 hours ago, marce said:

This thread is how these work or don't work, how are we supposed to answer, its electronics, its physics, so if there is no known mechanism for them working as marketed then we have to look at  possible ways the sound field is being influenced... The favourite supported by measurements (and experience) is an antenna...

 

 

 

Surprised that some send PM's asking for people to be banned, its a discussion about audio, nothing serious, just because we have disagreements doesn't mean we cant discuss our views, wanting to ban someone because of their views I find distasteful and dictatorial.

Its a discussion, a fun discussion I would hope, not a declaration of war.

 

I don't think that people are requesting bans because of disagreements but because of language used, manners and personal attacks.

[Ralf11]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

 

If you want to be scientific, there are studies about this.  Being confrontationally oppositional with individuals whose beliefs do not make sense has been shown in scientific studies to make them believe *even more strongly*.  ...

 

I've only seen a single study on that and it has been criticized heavily

 

More fundamentally, others read the posts here too.

 

Not to say that AJ was not his usual charming self 

 

OTOH, he was most likely correct

[semente]

2 hours 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 agree about the need for "first hand experience".

You don't need to drive a car with a missing wheel to know that it won't go far...

 

Since most phenomena involving audio electronics are easily explained by the laws of physics there will often be cases when it doesn't require listening to refute a listening impression.

Listening assessment is a very difficult, demanding and rather uncertain undertaking.

 

I have previously posted the interviews with two well regarded engineers that claimed not listen to their designs in the development stage (Peter Walker and Andrew Jones).

[Ralf11]

Arty Rimbaud was all about "first hand experience"...

 

 

 

The Mars Observer is not.

 

[89reksal]

19 minutes ago, marce said:

And as we are talking about GROUND heres how to measure the noise:

http://www.analog.com/media/en/analog-dialogue/raqs/groundNoiseMeasurement.pdf

Maybe this paragraph from the pdf marce linked contains a clue?

 

"Many engineers treat ground planes as if they were made of a superconductor rather than copper and assume that, no matter the current flowing in them, every part of a ground plane is at the same potential. While such an assumption may be reasonable on PC cards bearing only logic circuitry (or it may not, if the logic is very fast), it can lead to unacceptably low performance in PC cards carrying high precision or high frequency analog circuitry."

 

It seems most assume all ground within a device is the same potential. I know I did. Maybe as described above these differences of potential within a given  ground system or ground plane are what these boxes are trying to manipulate?  Maybe the noise that's being picked up is somehow carrying current from the box back to the connection point, instead of the assumption that current is flowing from connection point to the box. Maybe what's inside the box facilitates this flow of current and is providing the source of it. This flow of current back to the connection point should change the potential of that point which may bring it closer to a more ideal level with respect to the rest of the ground plane/system. It seems having the entire ground plane at the same potential is a good thing. if these boxes are helping do this, then that could result in the sonic improvements some hear. Maybe that's why as Cornan stated, the boxes require some experimentation to find the best locations to use them. Maybe the "best" locations are those that have the greatest potential difference from the rest of the ground plane.

 

A lot of maybes for sure but who knows.

[Ralf11]

I would like ot know just what so damn hard about this????

[89reksal]

5 minutes ago, semente said:

I don't agree about the need for "first hand experience".

You don't need to drive a car with a missing wheel to know that it won't go far...

 

This seems to be a pretty standard type of response to questioning the need for first hand experience. Some things are so well understood that first hand experience isn't required. I don't need to actually put a bullet in my head to know I mostly likely will die. it's things that are less well understood where I think it's necessary to at least be starting from a base of having tried something for your self.

 

I'm no scientist but I would guess that a main part of any experiment is actually physically performing the experiment at some point. Not just writing theories about why it can't be.

[Cornan]

9 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

Maybe this paragraph from the pdf marce linked contains a clue?

 

"Many engineers treat ground planes as if they were made of a superconductor rather than copper and assume that, no matter the current flowing in them, every part of a ground plane is at the same potential. While such an assumption may be reasonable on PC cards bearing only logic circuitry (or it may not, if the logic is very fast), it can lead to unacceptably low performance in PC cards carrying high precision or high frequency analog circuitry."

 

It seems most assume all ground within a device is the same potential. I know I did. Maybe as described above these differences of potential within a given  ground system or ground plane are what these boxes are trying to manipulate?  Maybe the noise that's being picked up is somehow carrying current from the box back to the connection point, instead of the assumption that current is flowing from connection point to the box. Maybe what's inside the box facilitates this flow of current and is providing the source of it. This flow of current back to the connection point should change the potential of that point which may bring it closer to a more ideal level with respect to the rest of the ground plane/system. It seems having the entire ground plane at the same potential is a good thing. if these boxes are helping do this, then that could result in the sonic improvements some hear. Maybe that's why as Cornan stated, the boxes require some experimentation to find the best locations to use them. Maybe the "best" locations are those that have the greatest potential difference from the rest of the ground plane.

 

A lot of maybes for sure but who knows.

 

Interesting thoughts lasker98! Thanks for sharing! ?

 

[Ralf11]

Dig the Curl !!

[plissken]

I wouldn't confuse an antenna with a PCB sporting mixed discrete components with high speed, billion transistor IC's, and multiple power rails.

[89reksal]

4 minutes ago, plissken said:

I wouldn't confuse an antenna with a PCB sporting mixed discrete components with high speed, billion transistor IC's, and multiple power rails.

 

I'm sure there's a point to this comment but I missed it. Care to elaborate?

[Teresa]

23 hours ago, Cornan said:

I think it's time to see if we can unite in a subject that stir up a lot of feelings here at CA. It is like a new USB cable discussion. So, how about the grounding boxes? Why do they work? How could they possibly improve SQ? Considering the tons of great reviews they must work in some way, right? 

 

This thread belongs to both believers and disbelievers of grounding boxes. Let's get this hot subject sorted out once and for all!  ?

Anything from scientific materials to personal ideas are most welcomed. I am a personal believer in that scientist is just a person with an extremely curious mind.

 

Above all keep it civil and without any personal attacks or "stupid" comments please! ?

 

I never heard of grounding boxes before, so I clicked on this thread. What a hot topic, 11 pages in less than a day! Amazing.

 

Next I went to Entreq's website and if I understand them correctly Entreq Ground Boxes are supposed to lower noise pollution and stray voltages in house wiring. Yet there was a graph posted in this thread showing higher not lower noise. Entreq's website didn't cause an interest in me to try one, mainly because I am not concerned with noise in my system, and I'm a cheapskate. 

 

Cornan, while you did ask for comment from both believers and disbelievers of grounding boxes, you did say no personal attacks or stupid comments. Seems many are not respecting the second part.

 

22 hours ago, esldude said:

...I guess in some people's eyes I am unqualified to speak to the effectiveness of salamander hormones or grounding boxes.

 

I'm also unqualified to speak as I have never tried grounding boxes either. Nor have I tried salamander hormones.

 

22 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Won't happen intentionally.

 

Not to me either. So?

 

20 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

No, you just have to explain why anyone should take absurd claims about obvious hucksterism seriously.

 

Personally, I don't take anyone's claims seriously. If interested I have to try the device in my system.

 

In this case I'm not interested in buying a grounding box. However, I think it is rude to belittle a product I have not tried. And if I had tried a grounding box in my system, I'd just report how it sounds, and if it made no difference I would report that too. But I would not belittle it or anyone who finds it improves the sound quality of their system. 

 

20 hours ago, Cornan said:

Just because you have'nt tried it yourself. Your claims is simply not valid.

 

I agree completely with this.

 

12 hours ago, marce said:

...Sorry for being rather abrupt, but these sort of devices and claims detract from the already abundant real problems in audio reproduction and neither forward the quest for fidelity or give the hobby a good name.  

 

I agree there are still unsolved problems in audio reproduction. However, there is no guarantee that the makers of exotic audio products would have the solution to those.

 

Remember those anti-jitter boxes decades ago, at the time many considered them a scam and would make no difference to sound quality. Yet now disc player's and DACs have greatly lowered jitter. You never know what advance might come from what appears to be a wacko product. 

[plissken]

1 minute ago, lasker98 said:

 

I'm sure there's a point to this comment but I missed it. Care to elaborate?

 

Why bring up grounds, where they are referenced from, when the box is simply an inert object that one end of an antenna connects to while the other end connects into something conductive like the rest of your audio system.

[89reksal]

4 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Why bring up grounds, where they are referenced from, when the box is simply an inert object that one end of an antenna connects to while the other end connects into something conductive like the rest of your audio system.

 

Wow! Just wow on so many levels.

[plissken]

Just now, lasker98 said:

 

Wow! Just wow on so many levels.

It would have domain if the box was some form of grounding mechanism. It's not. On so many levels.

[Kal Rubinson]

3 minutes ago, Teresa said:

Remember those anti-jitter boxes decades ago, at the time many considered them a scam and would make no difference to sound quality. Yet now disc player's and DACs have greatly lowered jitter. You never know what advance might come from what appears to be a wacko product. 

The difference here is significant.  In the case of jitter, it has been known as a measurable electronic phenomenon for a long time but its significance depends on whether listeners can detect it.  Just as someone can insist he hears something when he cannot, one can also fail to hear something until it is pointed out.

[Cornan]

Quote

I never heard of grounding boxes before, so I clicked on this thread. What a hot topic, 11 pages in less than a day! Amazing.

 

I knew it was a hot subject when I started the thread, but even I was taken by surprise with the amounts of posts. I'll have to go back and re-read the posts later on, so I do not miss something important. I have'nt got all the time in the world to answer everyone. I've got kids at home to mind that couldn't care less about grounding boxes! ?

[4est]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

You are betraying your own ignorance of science,  the fundamental basis of our civilization.

 

That says a lot about you 

 

This says a lot about you as well, if you think curiosity is not a part of scientific studies. Of course what does a layman as me know, you are the prof.

[Kal Rubinson]

5 minutes ago, Cornan said:

 I've got kids at home to mind that couldn't care less about grounding boxes! ?

Really cheap shot:  Let me congratulate you on having such intelligent children. 

[plissken]

2 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Really cheap shot:  Let me congratulate you on having such intelligent children.

 

And I'm the mean one around here.... :-/

[89reksal]

11 minutes ago, plissken said:

It would have domain if the box was some form of grounding mechanism. It's not. On so many levels.

 

Ah, thanks. So because you don't understand it it can't work?

 

So it's safer to assume that Entreq has been around 16 or 17 years, based out of a 12,000 sq/m building selling products designed solely to deceive an unsuspecting customer base? Sorry to say that doesn't work for me. I personally don't have that little respect for the human race.

 

I much prefer thinking even though I don't have a clue how this works, there must be something to it. Maybe not for me, since I haven't actually tried it, but obviously for some.

[AnotherSpin]

26 minutes ago, Teresa said:

Entreq's website didn't cause an interest in me to try one, mainly because I am not concerned with noise in my system, and I'm a cheapskate. 

 

 

 

There are enough noises in our head, why we should worry about any from outside?

[plissken]

17 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

 

Ah, thanks. So because you don't understand it it can't work?

I understand ground potential, mixed signal ground (read up on Henry Ott if interested).

 

Please find in ANY post where I said it didn't do something. I don't use the word 'work' for this device because it, demonstrably, should improve the noise floor if believing it is affecting ground. It raises it.

 

Now that COULD be a preference.

 

You seem to have me confused with someone else that says the box can't do anything.

Quote

 

So it's safer to assume that Entreq has been around 16 or 17 years, based out of a 12,000 sq/m building selling products designed solely to deceive an unsuspecting customer base? Sorry to say that doesn't work for me. I personally don't have that little respect for the human race.

 

You mean this building:

 

Quote

 

I much prefer thinking even though I don't have a clue how this works, there must be something to it. Maybe not for me, since I haven't actually tried it, but obviously for some.

 

We have a clue as to how it works: It's an Antenna.

 

You are now replying to me and you have reached beyond your technical limits.

[Cornan]

1 hour ago, marce said:

Get a scope, stick a bit of wire in the input, look at the screen... 1st thing you do when playing with a scope for the first time, put an ungrouned lead in, grab the end and look at the screen, its fun and enlightening. Then you start probing everything.

When we are doing signal integrity we model scope leads so that we can add the loading to the simulation to get a truer picture (!) of what they will see on a scope with a probe. We can also see what the waveform looks like without a scope, So we simulate and work on the real waveform and use l probe loaded waveforms to confirm the results...

And as we are talking about GROUND heres how to measure the noise:

http://www.analog.com/media/en/analog-dialogue/raqs/groundNoiseMeasurement.pdf

 

Thanks for sharing marce! Is there a more simple way to see if the antenna theory is correct or not, without having to buy a scope? I was'nt really planning to get a lab for the job! ?

[Teresa]

10 hours ago, mansr said:

How do pigs fly? I demand to know how they do it. Don't bother explaining that they have no wings.

 

The same way humans do, in an airplane.