How DOES the grounding boxes work?

[89reksal]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

- Is there anything you can point to in the texts you used in training, for example, or any other source you may use, that leads you to the conclusion electrical potentials can adjust themselves without the existence of a circuit?

 

This is what I came up with a quick Google search. I'm sure there's more or better explanations but I think this makes the point:

 

"The open circuit is represented by the diagram on the right, where the battery pumps water up from a closed container at the bottom to another closed container at the top. As the battery pumps water the pressure in the bottom decreases and the pressure at the top increases, and at some point the pressure difference will get bigger than the pump can manage. You can use a more powerful pump (i.e. a higher voltage) but even this will reach a point where it can't pump any more water."  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45281/is-it-possible-to-flow-current-in-open-circuit

 

18 minutes ago, Jud said:

- If yes, what causes potentials to exist in the first place?  (I.e., if they are self-adjusting, why haven't they adjusted themselves without any need for various grounding measures?)

 

In the case of the component side, wouldn't it simply be the potential of the connection point, which would be a function of the component itself. The box side is obviously less clear. Is it the noise picked up by the cable somehow creating a potential within the box contents? Is it the box contents on their own? I don't know the answer to that.

[89reksal]

21 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Antenna effect should not be blindly dismissed. Probably most all differences in analog cables can be broken down to capacitance & shielding -- shields are essentially antennas. Similarly twisted pairs operate on the principle that antenna effects cancel between each pair. See differential & common mode noise rejection.

 

At no point have I, blindly or otherwise, dismissed the antenna effect. As I said in my original post "Maybe the noise that's being picked up is somehow carrying current from the box back to the connection point,...". That should make clear that the antenna idea was part of the consideration.

 

One of my biggest points that I've apparently failed to make is; ok, we'll assume it's acting as an antenna, but I don't believe that's all that's at work here. Is the antenna effect intentional and integral to the box "working"? Or is the antenna effect irrelevant to the process? I've asked multiple times if people believe it's acting as an antenna, then what's the purpose of the box and its contents? I don't recall getting a single answer other than those assuming the box is just a scam and it's only there to get more money out of the consumers.

[89reksal]

32 minutes ago, Jud said:

I think you may have taken some posts as more oppositional than they really are.

Entirely possible.

33 minutes ago, Jud said:

You are perhaps being a little restrictive in insisting on scenarios where "works" means *improves* rather than *changes* the sound

I don't know where that's coming from. I don't recall ever saying or implying anything like that. If I did, it sure wasn't intentional. At one point I remember being asked what I meant by "works" and I gave a snarky reply that was most likely unjustified, but I never did give my explanation of "works".

[89reksal]

5 minutes ago, Speedskater said:

This would be true if the wire is directly connected to the chassis. But we sometimes read about the wire being connected to a RCA or XLR input. So if the RCA connector has a plastic insulator ring or the XLR connector pin #1 is not connected directly to the chassis, the wire can act as an interference antenna.

 

The point of the RCA or XLR connection is to connect to the signal ground. It's using those connectors, through their ground terminals only, to make that connection.

[89reksal]

8 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

If you look at the photos on the site below, there is more metal connected to the terminals on the inside so the box essentially just makes the cables (antenna) longer. 

So you're saying the box is simply an antenna? Quite possible but to say "so the box essentially just makes the cables (antenna) longer" seems to be eliminating any other possibilities. Not sure if that's your intent but that's how I'm reading it.

 

If it's only purpose is as an antenna, why not just use a specifically designed antenna and eliminated the box completely (again assuming that the box itself isn't a scam)? I can't see the contents of that box acting as a better antenna then even the most basic antenna design.

 

Would it make more sense that the idea of the box is either a source or destination for some kind of current? And the box contents somehow facilitate that process?

[89reksal]

7 minutes ago, Speedskater said:

The XLR pin #1 is only a shield it should not be connected to audio circuit ground. Yes there is conductivity between audio circuit ground, the chassis and the shield, but pin #1 is the shield and connects to the chassis.

I don't know if this is helpful or not. It's a link to what I believe is a product that may be working on the same principles as the ground box, or at least some of them. It shows how this is connected to an XLR connector.

http://audiosensibility.com/blog/products-2/grounding-devices-2/#!/Testament-Component-XLR-Male/p/11496626/category=2595839

[89reksal]

3 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

You are assuming that the manufacturer knows that their product acts an antenna.

I would sure hope they did, but whether the antenna effect is simply a side effect or integral to the box function is another question.

 

6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

Even if they do know this, how well do you think a product (an antenna) that increases noise levels would sell to audiophiles?

Doesn't dither basically add noise back to a signal? Audiophiles don't seem to have problems with that. Remember, my position is that either the antenna effect is not relevant or is only a part of the process. I don't believe the box is functioning only as an antenna.

[89reksal]

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

You are certainly entitled to hold this position although, as far as I can tell, it appears to be grounded in nothing more than your "belief" that the antenna theory isn't correct or is only partially correct.

Yes. Just as the antenna theory is based on nothing more than your's and others "belief" that it is correct

Just got the "grounded" pun. Haha.

 

[89reksal]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I can't speak for anyone else but my "belief" that the antenna theory is likely true is based on both science and empirical data (Amir's measurements).

 

What is your "belief" based on?

I have no doubts about the antenna theory in general. My point, AGAIN, is that the antenna theory is not the only thing going on with these boxes. The antenna effect may not even be relevant. I've seen nothing to show whether it is one way or the other.

Not sure what you mean by partially correct, but you saying I believe that the antenna theory isn't correct or is only partially correct seems incorrect. I assume this is what you're referring to as my belief: "Remember, my position is that either the antenna effect is not relevant or is only a part of the process. I don't believe the box is functioning only as an antenna." 

[89reksal]

12 minutes ago, plissken said:

It's CHASSIS ground. You are too ignorant in all of this to be effectively debating it.

Thanks for clarifying although I must have missed the debate part. You're still my hero.

[89reksal]

9 minutes ago, semente said:

 

What do you mean with "work"?

 

Are you referring to a simple "audible effect" or do you have a problem in mind that the box should be addressing?

 Yes, simple audible effect.

[89reksal]

2 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Coming from someone that doesn't understand the basics of balanced cabling.

I don't see the relevance but thanks again. You're still my hero.

 

[89reksal]

Just now, plissken said:

 

I wouldn't assign the dictionary definition of the word 'work' to something that introduces noise.

I understand you may be dealing with some kind of issues but if you actually read the post you seem to be referring to you should have noted that he was asking what I mean by work, not the dictionary definition. But thanks for trying to help.

You're still my hero.

[89reksal]

12 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

You didn't answer my question so I'll ask it again in a different way:

 

What is the basis of your belief that the boxes are doing something other than acting as antennas?

 

 

I thought I hit submit reply so apologies if this is the second response.

 

As I've stated multiple times, and even specifically to you, I choose not to believe that these boxes are a scam. if they're not a scam, it seems reasonable to think that these boxes aren't simply a $2k+ antenna. That means they are either acting as an antenna as part of the process or the antenna effect has nothing to do with it. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

 

What's your belief that the boxes are only acting as an antenna based on?

 

[89reksal]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

As has been pointed out many times, his comments are NOT a belief and are well-proven - for two centuries.

His belief is that the box is acting as an antenna only. Are you seriously trying to tell me that that belief has been well proven for two centuries.

 

Please tell me that was a joke.

[89reksal]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Despite what you may have learned in post-modern deconstructionism, not all statements or viewpoints have equal validity.

 Oh no, no argument there. Your comments could be a text book example. Go make up some more comments to post.

 

[89reksal]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

What are you guys doing? 

 

If you don't get along with someone, stop talking to him or her. 

 

This isn't the twisted internet debate team where you score points for bickering. 

Chris, did you see the post raff made that I asked to be removed. He made his own comments and posted them as if they were a quote from me.

 

[89reksal]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Please see Ralf11's posts above. 

 So I respond to all your questions, some multiple times, yet you won't/can't respond to the same question I was asked?

[89reksal]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Please use the report post function and I'll take a look.

Done. I consider this incredibly serious. Either suspension or ban as minimum. If I had missed it, who knows how long it would exist for all to read and assume I said it.

[89reksal]

Just to be clear for anyone reading this thread, these comments being attributed to me in the post by Ralf11 above were created by him to look like they were from me as some kind of a joke. I would never dream of making any such idiotic comments. Hopefully he'll be gone from the site before anymore read it.