Jump to content
IGNORED

Proper Grounding a system


Recommended Posts

re:  Why would anyone spend their time and/or money on any provider that makes unsupported claims about a product that go against engineering and scientific knowledge?

 

The key term is unsupported (which I bolded in the paraphrased post above).

 

If there are reliable listening tests showing better SQ, yet there is no known mechanism for why the SQ is improved ("engineering and scientific knowledge"), one might be justified in a purchase, or certainly their own audition.

 

But the burden is on the affirmative.

 

Moreover, there is another issue.  Suppose a $3,000 grounding box DOES improve SQ.  Is the improvement worth the cost?

 

And a 3rd issue is whether a $10 solution might provide the same SQ improvement.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, mekong56 said:

It doesn't really change anything about the system, just makes it better across the board. I think all of the above is basically a function of less noise. I am not qualified to speak technically on what the unit is doing or how it is doing it, nor am I really going to worry about that. Don't care to debate the technicals. However, I knew within a day of listening that it's affect was substantial IN MY SYSTEM, and there was no way I was moving forward without one! I would suspect it will be system dependent upon each home's power and wiring infrastructure and grounding setup. I will say that it  was a much more substantial effect than when I dropped a QX4 into my system.

 

Yes. It's all about reducing SQ degrading artifacts which are at a relatively low level, ie, hard to measure :). There are as probably as many techniques for doing this as there are people who discover the importance of tackling this area of sound reproduction - what's at the core of all of them is that they counteract, in some manner, the weaknesses in the audio system that allow the degradation to occur.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

And a 3rd issue is whether a $10 solution might provide the same SQ improvement.

 

Indeed, the $10 solution is just as effective - the last time I spent big money on expensive audiophile 'solutions' was 30 years ago - but I'm a fiddler; I'm happy to dive inside of things; and try bits of material that are lying around, or can be purchased from an ordinary store down the road. People who are not so inclined will require some packaged solution, possibly expensive.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

re:  Why would anyone spend their time and/or money on any provider that makes unsupported claims about a product that go against engineering and scientific knowledge?

 

The key term is unsupported (which I bolded in the paraphrased post above).

 

If there are reliable listening tests showing better SQ, yet there is no known mechanism for why the SQ is improved ("engineering and scientific knowledge"), one might be justified in a purchase, or certainly their own audition.

 

But the burden is on the affirmative.

 

Moreover, there is another issue.  Suppose a $3,000 grounding box DOES improve SQ.  Is the improvement worth the cost?

 

And a 3rd issue is whether a $10 solution might provide the same SQ improvement.

 

Why would anyone waste any time on this now incessant/obligatory trolling from the "measurements or bust" cognoscenti?

 

That dogma goes over really well on the circle jerk that is ASR, not so much here.

 

Newsflash: the members of this forum do not need saving from the evil snake oil peddling audio industry. The demographic on this forum is decidedly educated, and well aware of various concepts such as caveat emptor.

 

Last I checked nobody was raising their hand begging to be chosen for a rip-off or severe fleecing of their wallet. Most people consider purchase decisions very carefully, trying before they buy wherever possible or making use of money back guarantees when warranted.

 

Why the "measurements or it cannot/does not exist" crowd thinks the members of a forum like CA are so utterly gullible is beyond me.

 

I can only surmise they suffer from the "I'm 16 or 17 times smarter than everyone else" affliction, a particularly severe malady in which delusions of grandeur create a legend in their own mind.

 

 

no-mqa-sm.jpg

Boycott HDtracks

Boycott Lenbrook

Boycott Warner Music Group

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

Why the "measurements or it cannot/does not exist" crowd thinks the members of a forum like CA are so utterly gullible is beyond me.

Why would anyone think that?

But before going to the effort of making measurements, I would want someone to do a listening test to show that there is a difference worth measuring. More than one listener in more than one location would be an even better reason for doing measurements.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

it sounds like you are pretty gullible

 

@Speedskater: I rest my case.

 

5 minutes ago, Speedskater said:

But before going to the effort of making measurements, I would want someone to do a listening test to show that there is a difference worth measuring. More than one listener in more than one location would be an even better reason for doing measurements.

 

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and also what the thread starter was after in the 1st place, actual personal use experience (listening tests) from those that have tried Entreq and Nordost products in this category. And that can take the form of respectful civil discourse such as that posted by @mekong56 on the previous page, which should not be construed as attack fodder by anyone, after all it's his personal experience and opinion.

 

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

where is your engineering degree from?

 

Sorry, I don't feed trolls, because it invariably results in 67 pages of thread crap like that which has plagued so many well intentioned discussion topics on this forum. But then, you already knew that, both because you are omniscient and you have been a very willing participant in some of the very thread derailments I am referring to.

 

Since when are credentials such as a degree in engineering a prerequisite needed to comment on an audio forum? Only when you are a legend in your own mind.

 

no-mqa-sm.jpg

Boycott HDtracks

Boycott Lenbrook

Boycott Warner Music Group

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

you might want to stop the personal attacks and educate yourself

 

maybe try statistics for a start

 

Thanks, I have an education, including statistics.

 

You may wish to consider a little introspection, it will likely help you understand why nobody likes a know-it-all, even if they are an engineer.

 

The thread starter has expressed what it was he was seeking in posting this topic, and whether or not one likes the actual descriptive wording chosen as the topic/thread name, it's been clarified as to what that subject is.

 

I apologize to all for veering off that topic, I merely hoped to avoid it going off the rails with the same old objective/measurements/blind testing tired-ass BS attack that started anew right after @mekong56 made a very on-topic post.

no-mqa-sm.jpg

Boycott HDtracks

Boycott Lenbrook

Boycott Warner Music Group

Link to comment
2 hours ago, michaelD said:

Mekong56

 

Thanks for sharing a very good in depth personal review exactly what I started this thread about!   I wanted actual personal reviews of various grounding products but particularly Nordost or Entreq.  

 

Somehow part of this thread was hijacked by people who had all kinds of negative opinions on how they thought it did or did not work yet they personally tested NOTHING.    Mekong56 you sound like my kind of person all digital.   Would you care to share your system with us? Glad you at least tried it out.  Also I have had the same experience as you to try a Nordost product and then liked it so much purchased it.  

 

 

Sure, the rest of my system is as follows: Aesthetix Romulus DAC/CD player, Aesthetix Calypso preamp, Aesthetix Atlas amp. Aurender N100H transport, Joseph Audio Pulsar stand mounted speakers on Sound Anchors Stands, JL Audio e112 sub. Nordost Heimdall 1 interconnects and speaker cabling. Heimdall 2 and Audience "e" power cables, and the aforementioned Nordost power and vibration isolation products. I got in and out of analog about 8 years ago and have been toying with the idea of getting a turntable again, but I just can't convince myself to jump back into that world :).

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

re:  Why would anyone spend their time and/or money on any provider that makes unsupported claims about a product that go against engineering and scientific knowledge?

 

The key term is unsupported (which I bolded in the paraphrased post above).

 

If there are reliable listening tests showing better SQ, yet there is no known mechanism for why the SQ is improved ("engineering and scientific knowledge"), one might be justified in a purchase, or certainly their own audition.

 

But the burden is on the affirmative.

 

Moreover, there is another issue.  Suppose a $3,000 grounding box DOES improve SQ.  Is the improvement worth the cost?

 

And a 3rd issue is whether a $10 solution might provide the same SQ improvement.

I am not quite understanding the term unsupported. One can find any fictitious claim supported by marketing. 

My little experiment was far less than 10$ which I posted on that parallel topic: (not sure how to link)

 

Posted Saturday at 11:29 AM · Report post

I heard a demonstration of the CAD ground control at this year's HighEnd and was quite impressed but thought that it was far too expensive for what it is. Then I was reading http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/gutwire/1.html

which cost much less and are just a single wire to ground with surrounding layer of stuff acting as a filter.

 

So I decided to make just a little experiment. I soldered a 12 awg wire to the outer part (ground) of an old RCA (center pin unused) and connected that wire to the ground pin of an AC plug. When I connected that RCA to an spare input of my Devialet Pro and plugged it in a wall outlet (ground) I noticed a obvious sound improvement especially im the definition of the lows but also the rest of the spectrum.

I wonder if I need some fairy dust for further improvements.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, monteverdi said:

So I decided to make just a little experiment. I soldered a 12 awg wire to the outer part (ground) of an old RCA (center pin unused) and connected that wire to the ground pin of an AC plug. When I connected that RCA to an spare input of my Devialet Pro and plugged it in a wall outlet (ground) I noticed a obvious sound improvement especially im the definition of the lows but also the rest of the spectrum.

I wonder if I need some fairy dust for further improvements.

 

Clever boy! :P It's amazing what experiments can tell one - obviously, most are too petrified to try a thing or two - gosh, they might learn something that upsets their nice, neat world of beliefs ... ^_^

Link to comment

4 slides from Jim Brown (audiosystems) http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/InfoComm-Grounding2012.pdf 

Quote

Technical Grounding

  • The primary purpose of technical grounding is to minimize the flow of power-related noise currents on the shields of signal wiring, while also providing the equipment grounding required for safety
  • Technical grounding should also provide a suitable reference for cable and equipment shields at radio frequencies."

 

Quote

 

"Two More Important Definitions: Common Mode and Differential Mode

  •  A differential mode voltage is one that exists between the two wires running together in a cable –At any instant, currents in the two wires are equal and opposite
  • Differential mode is what we use to carry a signal (or control voltage) on a cable"

 

Quote

Common Mode and Differential Mode 

  • A common mode voltage or current is one that exists along a cable (that is, end to end), and there is no voltage difference between conductors
  • Virtually all common mode voltages in our systems are some form of noise

                    –Power-related voltages between equipment grounded at different points

                    –Radio signals picked up by our cables acting as receiving antennas

 

Quote

Noise Coupling Mechanisms

  • IR drop on shields of unbalanced signal wiring
  • Pin 1 problems –Improper shield termination within equipment
  • Inadequate low-pass filtering of inputs
  • Cable imbalance lets common-mode noise inside

                –Inductive imbalance between shield and signal conductors

               – Shield-current-induced noise (SCIN)

               –Capacitance imbalance of cable • Inadequate shielding of internal wiring

 

Link to comment

If you read Jim Brown's articles & slides, the problem seems to be "Noise between grounds makes leakage current flow on the cable shield "

 

One solution offered is to use beefy copper shield:

Cable Type                                    Shield/100 ft         Noise dB

Generic RG6 Quad Shield             16 ohms               +23.5 dB

Belden 8241F (Copper braid)        2.6 ohms               + 7.5 dB

Belden 8281 (double copper)        1.1 ohms                     0 dB  

Link to comment
4 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Clever boy! :P It's amazing what experiments can tell one - obviously, most are too petrified to try a thing or two - gosh, they might learn something that upsets their nice, neat world of beliefs ... ^_^

You do sprout some rubbish, working on noise free controls etc. for all the other electronic stuff (including submarines and aircraft, no mother earth there) means we have learnt something that if you listened you may benefit from instead of playing.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, marce said:

You do sprout some rubbish, working on noise free controls etc. for all the other electronic stuff (including submarines and aircraft, no mother earth there) means we have learnt something that if you listened you may benefit from instead of playing.

 

Hello marce, long time no chat! :)

 

Of course there are solutions and techniques to resolve all these annoyances, and it's always much easier when one has full control over the engineering of the entire system - as you are typically quick to point out, there is tonnes of literature to guide one. However, the reality of how conventional audio setups are assembled does allow audible anomalies to figure - so, one has to do "fixit" stuff after the fact.

Link to comment

The fact of the matter is that a lot of audio systems suffer from"Noise between grounds makes leakage current flow on the cable shield"

 

If you use differential cabling &/or class II throughout your system you will probably not be exposed to this but how many people here have these configurations? 

 

Yes submarines & Aircraft are tightly engineered & medical systems are also tightly controlled as to the amount of allowed leakage current. 

 

The removal of this noise is audibly perceivable as is evidenced by many here.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Hello marce, long time no chat! :)

 

Of course there are solutions and techniques to resolve all these annoyances, and it's always much easier when one has full control over the engineering of the entire system - as you are typically quick to point out, there is tonnes of literature to guide one. However, the reality of how conventional audio setups are assembled does allow audible anomalies to figure - so, one has to do "fixit" stuff after the fact.

Hi again, hows life.... sorry for being abrupt I did miss an icon out. Not doing much these days, prefer to listen to music rather than endless discussions, it was the anti engineering/science posts that got my pecker trembling with rancour as one might say.

 

One reasons why shields are a problem if they are rather low on straight DC resistance, compared to other possible paths in the system (often the PE connections) is that low frequency signal follow the path of lowest resistive impedance, thus we can get multiple paths for the lower frequency signals creating ground loops. That is why I have always favoured a complete low impedance multi point return path that I can control, rather than trying to create star points and star of star grounds and all the other over complex methods often employed. Give the returns a nice low impedance path and let them find there own way home.

 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

The fact of the matter is that a lot of audio systems suffer from"Noise between grounds makes leakage current flow on the cable shield"

 

If you use differential cabling &/or class II throughout your system you will probably not be exposed to this but how many people here have these configurations? 

 

Yes submarines & Aircraft are tightly engineered & medical systems are also tightly controlled as to the amount of allowed leakage current. 

 

The removal of this noise is audibly perceivable as is evidenced by many here.

If you are adding a ground box or similar I would strongly suggest that any difference in sound is due to noise being added, by the addition of an antenna. Of course I would expect a product like this to show some standard EMC noise graphs to show they are actually reducing noise by what must be a significant and measurable amount.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, marce said:

If you are adding a ground box or similar I would strongly suggest that any difference in sound is due to noise being added, by the addition of an antenna. Of course I would expect a product like this to show some standard EMC noise graphs to show they are actually reducing noise by what must be a significant and measurable amount.

I don't know if or how such grounding boxes work but the reports seem to suggest they do & seem to support the type of audible improvements that reducing such noise usually entails?

Others have achieved the same effects with low impedance grounding wire between chassis which is very much cheaper but aesthetically less pleasing & indeed another approach is to use beefy shielded cables - I'm sure there are other solutions?

 

What is your reasoning for suggesting that the noise reduction is significant?  

Link to comment
10 hours ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

@Speedskater: I rest my case.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and also what the thread starter was after in the 1st place, actual personal use experience (listening tests) from those that have tried Entreq and Nordost products in this category. And that can take the form of respectful civil discourse such as that posted by @mekong56 on the previous page, which should not be construed as attack fodder by anyone, after all it's his personal experience and opinion.

The problem here is:

Claims are made that are counter to good-engineering-practice and scientific knowledge. So pending further demonstrations, these personal use experiences should be viewed as suspect do to uncontrolled variables or listener errors. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

I don't know if or how such grounding boxes work but the reports seem to suggest they do & seem to support the type of audible improvements that reducing such noise usually entails? 

Real reports don't show that at all!  Only casual listening auditions do.

There are no repeatable, reproducible, proctored listening tests.

 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Speedskater said:

Real reports don't show that at all!  Only casual listening auditions do.

There are no repeatable, reproducible, proctored listening tests.

 

What equipment do you have & can you show me the repeatable, reproducible, proctored listening tests for each of your audio devices, please?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...