How DOES the grounding boxes work?

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

 

Also from what I remember from my school years, probably the first step in any experiment is developing a hypothesis. Then the experiment(s) are done to prove or dis-prove the hypothesis. In our Entreq example, would you agree that the most basic starting point would be a) they do make an audible difference or b) no, they don't make an audible difference?

 

I’m sorry, because I know my answer will probably be frustrating to you: No, I would definitely not start there.  I’m not saying this to be contrary or avoid the issue.  The reason I say it is that in planning an experiment you have to define your questions very specifically in order to know what to control for.  So I would first (as the engineers and scientists here are doing) try to think of what the specific cause could possibly be of any audible effect, then test to see whether that was correct.  Certainly the measurement by Amir is an indication the antenna hypothesis may well be correct, but we would want to do confirming tests and measurements.

 

5 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

From there, the most logical next step would be to perform an experiment to prove or dis-prove the hypothesis. My point is that the experiment required to do this is actually testing the product first hand as a start. I don't think many  scientific advances have come about by people just writing about how something can't be. I believe this site has devolved into more about the writing about how something can't work rather than the true scientific approach.

 

For people who can seem obsessed with measurements, blind, double-blind and God knows what else, it seems funny to me how little actual first hand experience is considered. Apparently, it's not considered at all by a large part of our community.

 

I am very happy to read subjective impressions.  As I assume you do, I pay closer attention to people who seem to like many of the same things I do.  But I don’t feel when I am listening and forming a subjective impression that I’m doing science.  I’m just listening, having an opinion, and hopefully enjoying myself, no huge deal.

 

5 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

Lastly, do you honestly believe that everything to be known about electrical theory is already discovered based on work from the 1800's or earlier? You don't think there's a possibility that there may things remaining to be discovered or revised? 

 

For the really basic stuff we are talking about - the need to have a circuit for current flow, how ground return paths and antennas work - that is really well established.  Is there plenty more to be discovered about the behavior of electronic systems?  Sure, there’s cutting-edge research going on, but of course the fact you need to complete a circuit to make current flow (to turn a light on, for example) isn’t the subject of such research.

[jabbr]

4 hours ago, marce said:

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...

 

Since the box is putatively connected to the case of the piece of electrical equipment I wonder if there might be an effect on the degree of balance the case provides as shielding. The possibilities are multiple and would seem to be strongly dependent on the shielding properties of the case and any other shielding e.g. mu-metal but its conceivable that under very specific conditions, an external antenna connected to ground might increase the balance of the shielding?

[jabbr]

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

what would be an appropriate measuring instrument?

an "E-meter" of course

 

[fas42]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

 

what would be an appropriate measuring instrument?

 

One sensitive enough to register that electrical activity , and, used by someone who knew how to make such a measurement . If one "goes deep enough" there will always be factors relevant - all materials have levels of say, thermoelectric, electrochemical, piezoelectric, triboelectric, pyroelectric behaviour - most will be miniscule, some may be relevant - the trick is to work out whether there is "anything there" that is causing audible variations.

[Ralf11]

WHAT that electrical activity??

[Ralf11]

7 minutes ago, jabbr said:

an "E-meter" of course

 

 

 

does that measure brain dys-function?

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I'm referring to the electrical sphere of interest, that is, any and everything that by any means can cause an electrical perturbation - you know, jump on an electrical cable, and one will be able to see electrical activity, if you use an appropriate measuring instrument. This is the arena where some of the audible problems are possibly being addressed.

 

When I first started getting more involved in audio I treated cable as just the bits tying electrical parts together - over time, I realised I needed to get serious about this area - which didn't mean buying silly, expensive consumer items; rather, thinking very carefully about how every run of cable could possibly affect the sound - and, experimenting a great deal.

 

If I want to get the SQ that's my goal, I haven't got a hope unless I consider these aspects.

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

WHAT that electrical activity??

 

Triboelectric is a major one - I worry about this a lot.

[Ralf11]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Triboelectric is a major one - I worry about this a lot.

 

 

You have better things to worry about.

[Jud]

45 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Triboelectric is a major one - I worry about this a lot.

 

I don’t worry about anything in audio “a lot.”   Audio is for fun.  There’s plenty else to worry about.

[plissken]

49 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Triboelectric is a major one - I worry about this a lot.

 

Are you talking in a medical equipment sense? Because my cables simply lay on the floor not moving.

 

Medical equipment designers test for Triboelectric noise by taking a 5 foot section of cable, 3 foot of it clear span.  Then take the weight of a 1 foot section of cable, multiply by 40, and then release that on the middle of the cable.

 

I think it's 50mv or less P2P and it's all good.

[esldude]

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

[plissken]

Just need an Antenna Field Strength meter. 

[Cornan]

5 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

There is a lot of back and forth. 

 

Are you interested in scientific discussion of grounding boxes?

 

Central to a scientific explanation is disproof of the null hypothesis. That is a scientist will start out with the hypothesis that the grounding box doesn't do anything and then attempt to prove this hypothesis wrong. This may seem counterintuitive to the non-scientist but is essential to the notion of falsifiability. So start with this.

 

Perhaps you aren't interested in a scientific explanation however. This is OK. There are questions that are not scientific. For example "what is the best way to behave to ensure that I will get into heaven?" This is not a scientific question, rather a religious question. It would be wrong to answer that "heaven doesn't exist according to physics" Physics has nothing to answer that question.

 

So let me ask the question: Do you want a scientific answer to the question: how does the grounding box work?

 

If not a scientific answer then what type of answer are you looking for?

 

I am fine with any plausible answer how the grounding boxes works. Scientific or not. So far, do you think I've got more than the antenna idea from a scientific point of view? Even if this is not likely to me I am willing to put it to the test if I only knew how to. 

[Cornan]

7 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Have anything at all with the “rabbit ears” or “whip” type of antenna, like a table radio?

 

Actually there’s a gem kind of buried in esldude’s message:  If something like the Entreq box worked, then antennas wouldn’t be antennas, they’d act as grounds for what they were attached to.

 

Thanks Jud! So, is there a simple way to test if the antenna theory holds true?

[Cornan]

Here is Entreq's own description of their grounding boxes in case someone have missed it:

 

http://www.entreq.com/products/ground-boxes-17667704

Quote

You will get an improvement in dynamic's, a lower noise floor and more natural flow in the sound.

For us a clean and effective ground point is one of the most important factor's in ensuring the best possible sonic platform for any hifi system!
We normally say 220V 50Hz alternative110 V 60Hz. But in our opinion there are a lot more frequence on the power net. These is caused by the way we connect zero and protective ground together in the main central/fuse boxes.Most things these days run on electricity. Current goes in and current goes out of devices and lighting fixtures of every kind. All of these make the current messy. Not least computers with their switched power units, chargers for e.g., mobile telephones, all the halogen and LED lighting, dimmers etc. all cause a great deal of high-frequency noise and stay voltages. This noise always seeks the easiest path to the earth. And since this can be everything from 50-60 Hz to very high-frequency, but weak, currents, it is not always certain that the path of least resistance is via the protective earth. These currents instead can find dishwashers, laundry machines, counter tops with water pipes, your HiFi rack and your stereo set with all the cables and devices as more attractive paths to the earth. Moreover, these stay voltages often generate very large magnetic fields that absolutely have influence on the sound reproduction.
One big problem is that the protective ground many time are overloaded or not constructed for handle this pollutions. It can handle a real "bang" of 110-220Volt and X Watts without any problems, but when it come to this small currents of some Milli V with very high frequence it dont catch them. So instead these will flow arround in the power system searching for a place to ground. And in fact the protective grond can leak back a lot of pollutions to the power net that instead go to f,ex your HiFi system with all the cables and magnetic fields and load up and rest there in their serch for ground.Our ground boxes / Eartha cables are designed to resemble and work like a bit of Mother Earth in concentrated form and offer the simplest and fastest route for this high-frequency noise to reach a earth point. Since such are very high-frequency weak currents, it is not necessary to have a lot of mass; but it is important that the cables are optimized for these high frequency and the groundbox be a purely attractive earth point.The construction and choice of materials in the earth box has a crucial effect on the result. In part, the minerals and metals involved have an effect, but the relationship of proportion and distance between them also affects the result. 

When you connect your system to one of our groundboxes you offer this high frequence stay voltages a ground point where they can find peace instead of flowing arround in the system.

 

Remember that Entreq is not the only one making grounding boxes. Many others like Nordost, Acoustic Revive etc makes them as well. 

Acoustic Revive is quite open about their design, which makes it more interesting https://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/rgc24/rgc24_01.html

 

This part could be interesting to know as well: ?

Quote

Data proven an effect of RGC-24
We used the Radiation Technology's electric field strength meter ELF-100E to measure the strength of electric field. The measured scale changes depending on equipment, but there is a definite decrease in electric filed strength. 
The system in this photograph, 900V/m was measured before connecting RGC-24 and 750V/m after connecting RGC-24.

 

[Cornan]

5 hours ago, plissken said:

 

[marce]

12 hours ago, lasker98 said:

 

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.

Pretty much yes, whether intentional or not I couldn't say, but some basic electronic knowledge would give them a clue, that the product does not work as stated. 

[marce]

9 hours ago, lasker98 said:

 

Also from what I remember from my school years, probably the first step in any experiment is developing a hypothesis. Then the experiment(s) are done to prove or dis-prove the hypothesis. In our Entreq example, would you agree that the most basic starting point would be a) they do make an audible difference or b) no, they don't make an audible difference? From there, the most logical next step would be to perform an experiment to prove or dis-prove the hypothesis. My point is that the experiment required to do this is actually testing the product first hand as a start. I don't think many  scientific advances have come about by people just writing about how something can't be. I believe this site has devolved into more about the writing about how something can't work rather than the true scientific approach, which should involve an open mind.

 

For people who can seem obsessed with measurements, blind, double-blind and God knows what else, it seems funny to me how little actual first hand experience is considered. Apparently, it's not considered at all by a large part of our community.

 

Lastly, do you honestly believe that everything to be known about electrical theory is already discovered based on work from the 1800's or earlier? You don't think there's a possibility that there may things remaining to be discovered or revised? 

Maybe, but these boxes are nothing new, they are a wire connected to the system ground at one end, floating at the other, forming more than likely a dipole. Do you honestly believe an Audiophile Farmer who does not understand electronics is going to make the next great discovery...

 

[marce]

3 hours ago, Cornan said:

He

Acoustic Revive is quite open about their design, which makes it more interesting https://www.acoustic-revive.com/english/rgc24/rgc24_01.html

 

This part could be interesting to know as well: ?

 

It says nothing and proves nothing. As to their measurements LOL, need to be done in a fully isolated EMC lab with background readings etc. Its not the measurements I would do to prove the ground is quieter, I have already posted that methodology. But it look good on the advertising... 

As said before WHY are we not using these magical devices in other areas of electronics, why do we follow the likes of Henry Ott and others, how do we know what we are doing works...

 

[Fokus]

Audio is the laughing stock of the electronics industry, and a market totally supportive for charlatans.

 

[Jud]

4 hours ago, Cornan said:

 

Thanks Jud! So, is there a simple way to test if the antenna theory holds true?

 

One way I can think of, at possible risk to your speakers (  ), but if you are curious to try, would go a long way toward establishing whether or not the Entreq is acting like an antenna and adding noise at a subtle level to your system specifically:

 

- With the Entreq connected but no content, turn up the volume until you can hear something - static, hum, Radio Luxembourg - through the speakers.  Mark with a piece of tape or however else you like where the volume is.

 

- Turn the volume down, turn the system off, disconnect the Entreq.

 

- Again with no program content, turn the system on and turn the volume back up to the mark.  Any change in the noise?

[fas42]

10 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I don’t worry about anything in audio “a lot.”   Audio is for fun.  There’s plenty else to worry about.

 

Gee whiz, I'm not moping on the bed for hours thinking about it! The days of getting frustrated about not getting a handle on things straightaway are long behind me - after all, tomorrow is another day ...

 

It just means that when there is a certain type of dead, flat quality to the sound that the reasons usually lie in this camp - and I won't lose the problem until I investigate further. So, I can shrug my shoulders and live with it - or, decide to get active about things ... luckily, I've built up a whole repertoire of things to try, without really thinking about it - which quite often gets me in a much more satisfactory place.

[jabbr]

6 hours ago, Cornan said:

 

I am fine with any plausible answer how the grounding boxes works. Scientific or not. So far, do you think I've got more than the antenna idea from a scientific point of view? Even if this is not likely to me I am willing to put it to the test if I only knew how to. 

 

The manufacturers provide non-scientific answers. If they are plausible to you, then you are all set.

 

The science of electromagnetism is well established and has allowed our entire civilization to be transformed. The successful predictions made through the use of electronic theory are evident on a daily basis: electronic things work. Entire industries have been formed through the use of electronics. When I click on my phone button in the morning to turn it on and unlock it, I might pray just a little that the screen goes on, but generally I am allowed to go about my day without thinking too much about how my phone works because it has been engineered with electromagnetic theory as a foundation. So there are benefits to having a scientific explanation.

 

You need to draw a circuit/schematic.

 

People are discussing why there is only one connection to a device? There are circuit elements which have a single connection: an antennae is one, a capacitor is another -- the other side is connected to something else. So clearly certain electromagnetic waves can travel through an air or other material gap. An antennae allows a large air gap but even then there is a transmitter and receiver. The waves have to start somewhere and go somewhere. The fact that there isn't a drawn circuit which describes the behavior of the "grounding box" tells us that there isn't a scientific explanation (aside from antennae). Measurements themselves don't provide an explanation, the circuit does. Measurements may support or detract from a proposed explanation/circuit.

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, jabbr said:

There are circuit elements which have a single connection: an antennae is one, a capacitor is another

A capacitor has two connections. Attach only one, and it won't do a thing. An antenna is also more accurately seen as one of a pair of connections, the other being earth or the other half of a dipole antenna.