How DOES the grounding boxes work?

[89reksal]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

I would prefer not to start from any assumptions that the boxes work or do not.

 

I'd say that's at least as valid and may be closer to how I think. What I do have issue with and can't understand at all is the people that start from the assumption that this can't work and that's the end of it. At least you're approaching with an open mind as opposed to closed mind/mind already made up.

[89reksal]

26 minutes ago, marce said:

They do not work as described, they will act as an antenna. Why am I so sure of this, 35+ years of trying to pass CONDUCTED IMMUNITY tests, including laying out the protection components properly, creating EMC moats etc. etc.

 

 I'm curious why you posted the pdf link that I read and got the idea about adjusting the ground plane? I don't recall seeing any feed back from you on it in response to a single post I made referencing it (of which there have been many). If it wasn't worthy of comment by you, why post it in the first place? It seems a common tactic in these types of threads to bombard them with links to supposed expert research, etc. Am I to assume from here on that any links you provide are simply noise and have no value? If yes, it will definitely save me a lot of reading time.

[89reksal]

8 minutes ago, semente said:

Can you define work in this situation?

 

I can but I won't dignify that question with a serious response. I think we have more than enough trolls on these threads without any encouragement.

[89reksal]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

Ahhh, I see the objectivists have called a victory here - they've pummelled the other side mercilessly, and the latter have retreated to "lick their wounds" ... pity, that ...

 

That's the usual outcome with any of these types of threads. People with a genuine interest in a topic start out trying to have a discussion. Then the same group of Merry Pranksters swoop in and destroy another thread. Then they're left to discuss off topic crap amongst themselves until one of them spies a new victim they can all swoop in on.

 

I picture them as kids running along the beach destroying all the other kids sand castles because for whatever reason they wouldn't build one for themselves but sure as heck, no one else was going to have one while they were around.

 

Pathetic,. but we'll get to watch it all over again the next time some poor innocent starts a thread about something  they have no experience with. 

 

it just dawned on me that their actions could be considered a form of bullying. But I guess that's ok.

[89reksal]

11 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Would genuinely want any plausible explanations, not just one or two predetermined ones.

 

My understanding is that this is the entire reason for this thread? Have you presented any plausible explanations? All I remember from you is a series of smart ass comments. Do you believe that's a positive contribution to the thread?

[89reksal]

3 minutes ago, marce said:

Read the title of the thread, its how they work. That's what some of us have  been discussing, just because it dosen't fit with your views  or wotever, is no use crying about it

 

No. What you're discussing is why they don't work. That's not what the thread title is asking. Maybe that's part of the problem around here? A reading comprehension epidemic?

[89reksal]

2 minutes ago, marce said:

They work as an antenna

 

That's about as helpful as responding to a question about how a car works by saying it works like a wheel.

[89reksal]

11 minutes ago, jabbr said:

The answer to your question is that they work because you believe they work.

 

No. That would be your answer. Not the answer.

 

Why should your unproven belief carry any more weight than my unproven belief, although my unproven believe is backed up by years of positive user feedback, where yours is backed up by.....?

[89reksal]

27 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

That's about as helpful as responding to a question about how a car works by saying it works like a wheel.

 

Maybe a better analogy would be someone asking how a radio works and your response is "it's an antenna". Do you believe that's a useful response?

 

Now I'm responding to myself. I've officially bottomed out.

[89reksal]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I'm perfectly happy with unproven hypotheses. You tell me then: There are a group of people who believe something strongly and have believed for years. I am suggesting that this is a religious belief.

 

You are praying to a box. People pray to all sorts of things, candles, lights, trees, mountains, crystals. I think praying to a box filled with tourmaline sand is perfectly acceptable -- it is indeed special sand. I have no problem with religion, nor people that prefer red outhouses. nor silver automobiles. These are all perfectly fine preferences.

 

The belief does not have the characteristics of a scientific belief -- if you wish to ask a scientific question then at a very minimum you must submit to the requirement of falsifiability. So disprove the null hypothesis and that is how to give your belief scientific credence.

 

 I really have no response to this.

[89reksal]

4 minutes ago, marce said:

A few centuries of discoveries in physics and electronics...

 

 And people believed the earth was flat for a lot longer than a few centuries.

[89reksal]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Further to this: lasker, if indeed the Entreq is affecting the sound in @Cornan‘s system by acting as an antenna, it would do so by capturing radio waves (radio frequency interference, or RFI), then conducting that noise into the ground side of his system through the ground screw to which it’s attached.

 

Is that a clear explanation?

 

Then what's the purpose of the box and it's contents?

[89reksal]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

It's to justify the price.

 

if you believe that I truly feel sorry for you.

[89reksal]

20 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

lasker, this is not about belief, it's about knowledge. The reason people believed in flat Earth was based on lack of knowledge. Science changed that. Science is why we now know Earth is not flat, and science is why we know that grounding boxes don't work the way they are described, but instead, act as an antenna. You can believe what you want, including that Earth is flat, but that doesn't change reality.

 

I'm sure back in the days when people believed the earth was flat and someone at the local watering hole brought up the possibility that the earth wasn't flat, your ancestor was right there telling them that all science proves that the earth is flat. 

 

Gimme a frickin' break with these responses. Does anyone know if the term "know-it-all" is derived from the Latin word "noitall"? Reminds me of the Groucho Marx song "Whatever It Is, I'm Against It".

[89reksal]

7 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Btw, you seem far more enraged than the OP, who's taking this all in stride.

 

 Unfortunately, I have a low tolerance for ignorance. Believe me, that tolerance has been stretched to the limits by this back and forth.

 

I see why the usual suspects in these threads all have such high post counts.

[89reksal]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

There are two schools of thoughts: one based on belief, another based on science. You are attacking folks based on your belief system, while most of the conversation in this thread has been about scientific explanation for what these boxes might or might not do. It's clear that you don't subscribe to the scientific approach. There's really not much to discuss, since I don't share your belief system and you have no other explanation to contribute.

 

Finally, progress. You're right and I'm wrong. That makes everything so much clearer.

[89reksal]

2 minutes ago, marce said:

Don't its true, though in this case the discoverer (who admits no real electronics experience) probably doesn't know either, just believes they work as its all based on the MYTH that mother earth/Ground wotever is an infinite sink for noise. So its a component designed by someone with no electronic experience based on misguided myths.

 

I highly doubt the OP would have had to start this thread if he believed the explanation from the discoverer so I don't think you're telling anyone anything new. One known fact is that there are years of satisfied customers using these products. So that leads me to believe you're assuming all these people are wrong, misguided, delusional, etc., and you, who have no first hand experience with the product, are right? And I'm the one dealing in mis-guided myths?

 

But I guess that's how science works nowadays. No need to perform any actual experiments. I believe in science. I know all there is to know. next topic please.

[89reksal]

14 minutes ago, marce said:

Yours is probably one of the highest, your recent posts have destroyed the conversation that was going on quite amicably, you have lowered the tone of the thread and in doing so proved yourself to what you are accusing other of. I presume you get some thrill for derailing an amicable thread, going totally of topic and waving your hands around booing!

 

 I believe other than the antenna theory, I'm the only one in 22 pages of posts to post a possible theory. It may be wrong but at least I tried. Unlike most others.

 

"Yours is probably one of the highest" . 518 posts in over 6 years is one of the highest?

[89reksal]

11 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Not what I said. I said we have a different approach. We'll never agree on any details, since we are approaching the subject from completely different perspectives.

 

Point taken. My apologies.

[89reksal]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

Unfortunately folks that actually known the science at work here and who deal with these issues professionally have told you that your theory makes no sense.

 

Where I have a big problem is "my theory" (that somehow the box is adjusting the voltage of the ground plane) makes no sense at all, yet the theory that "it's an antenna" (the wire is picking up airborne noise and somehow injecting that back into the component and the box itself is only there as a way to get more money out of customers) is all the explanation we need. I know what theory makes more sense to me.

[89reksal]

29 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

You added the part in bold to my words. I never said this.

 

I simply said that the antenna theory is the only one that fits the facts presented.

 

I have no idea whether or not the makers of this product believe their own explanation of how it works or if they are consciously trying to scam anyone.

 

It is quite possible that they simply noticed the same euphonic effect that the OP noticed and the explanation provided is simply their theory as to why it works.

 

I never said or meant to imply those were your words. You hadn't said anything about any theory in your deleted post other than "your theory", which I took to mean my theory, so I'm not sure why you would think I was referring to you with that bold part.

[89reksal]

43 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

I have no idea whether or not the makers of this product believe their own explanation of how it works or if they are consciously trying to scam anyone.

 

I have no idea either. I will say I consider the possibility of intentionally scamming to be pretty remote. Definitely possible but just hard for me to believe as a most likely explanation.

 

47 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

It is quite possible that they simply noticed the same euphonic effect that the OP noticed and the explanation provided is simply their theory as to why it works

 

I agree although I'm assuming there's no negative connotation meant by "euphonic".

[89reksal]

"The Entreq Tellus and Silver Tellus Grounding Boxes are an essential part of a high performance audio system. They help to lower the noise floor of all attached audio components by optimizing the relative ground potential which results in a much more musical presentation. The Entreq units do so without adding any sonic signature of their own, which is a remarkable achievement since this ensures a wide compatibility with solid-state and vacuum tube based low and high efficiency systems."   http://audiosensibility.com/blog/products-2/entreq-grounding-cables/

 

I just read that for the first time. I wanted to see if they had any thoughts since I knew they sold the cables. From reading that, it doesn't seem my idea of the box somehow adjusting the voltage of the ground plane is all that different from "optimizing the relative ground potential which results in a much more musical presentation." Maybe my idea isn't the nonsense so many have attempted to make it out to be?

 

As an aside, I hate to keep saying "my idea", my theory". I don't know how else to refer to it. I don't want to make it appear that I have to be right. It may seem that way but it's not.

 

 

[89reksal]

4 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

I think lasker's larger point is to ask why not spend a little more time on how the box might work, rather than debunk. I also think he has perceived patterns of response toward nonscientific audiophiles that he thinks are sometimes unhelpful, or unproductive at the very least, and that this in part motivates his challenge. I 'll just briefly repeat my own view that those who want the "equipment" part of this hobby to be more rational/empirical would be far better served by being more diplomatic.

 

+infinity

[89reksal]

3 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I think you need to consider the fact that Entreq may not actually have a clue how their product works.

 

I have no issue at all with that comment. it's entirely possible.

 

Just to clarify, that quote wasn't taken from Entreq, it was taken from the site I provided the link to.