Proper Grounding a system

[Speedskater]

2 hours ago, mmerrill99 said:

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

I'm not the one making extraordinary claims.

And if I did some blind tests and found no differences, would you accept the tests as evidence that the grounding boxes don't work?

[audio.bill]

10 minutes ago, Speedskater said:

I'm not the one making extraordinary claims.

And if I did some blind tests and found no differences, would you accept the tests as evidence that the grounding boxes don't work?

Yet you are indeed, by continually questioning and casting doubt upon others who have taken the time to listen and evaluate these components' in their system and are simply sharing their findings. They are not making any "extraordinary claims" and as a matter of fact most specifically state that they're not attempting to explain the technology, rather to simply share their findings which are subjective by nature. If you couldn't tell the difference in a blind test that wouldn't definitively prove that a product doesn't work (which would be one possibility,) but rather that YOU couldn't hear the difference.

[michaelD]

35 minutes ago, Speedskater said:

I'm not the one making extraordinary claims.

And if I did some blind tests and found no differences, would you accept the tests as evidence that the grounding boxes don't work?

Here we go again!  Someone trying to dismiss grounding boxes yet has not tried one.  If indeed you did the work and actually tried some and then determined that they really do not make a sound difference that is positive absolutely that would add to the discussion.  But to run on and on with how this or that can't be measured yet you have heard or measured nothing does not make any sense.  Why don't you move on to another thread or better yet test some of the boxes and have some real input.

[mmerrill99]

1 hour ago, Speedskater said:

I'm not the one making extraordinary claims.

And if I did some blind tests and found no differences, would you accept the tests as evidence that the grounding boxes don't work?

They are not claims - they are listening impressions

Why not grant others the same lee-way you grant yourself - that is to use & enjoy their audio devices & rport what they hear without being challenged to provide what you yourself haven't provided "repeatable, reproducible, proctored listening tests"?

 

There is another site on which you participate called audio science review where your views are very welcome - do you not find it satisfying enough to post there? 

[Ralf11]

14 hours ago, monteverdi said:

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.

 

if a claim is made that cannot be explained by current acoustical or electronic understanding, yet is well supported by reliable, statistically valid listening tests, I'd be very interested to hear the component

 

if not supported by valid listening tests, I am not interested as it is likely fairy dust

[Ralf11]

BTW, I don't know if these grounding boxes boxes work or not, or if they do that they work better than simpler solution.

 

my concern is that they be studied and tested by valid listening tests, not just confirmation bias riddled woo-woo even if the woo-woo listener is "educated"

 

and educated means a reasonable understanding of the scientific method - your senior thesis on the psycho-sexual implicaitons of basket-weaving in Lower Khawhutistan does NOT qualify.

[wgscott]

3 hours ago, michaelD said:

Someone trying to dismiss grounding boxes yet has not tried one.  

 

Do you dismiss using prayer (without having given it a try) rather than antibiotics to treat bacterial pneumonia?  

[Johnseye]

3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Do you dismiss using prayer (without having given it a try) rather than antibiotics to treat bacterial pneumonia?  

 

Getting in a little deep there. I get the correlation but that would be an ethical boundary. 

 

I think the point to remember is that when actual scientific means of testing are available they should be used. When those means are not yet discovered then the scientific method should be adhered to as best as possible. Otherwise anyone can make a claim for any reason which can be taken as fact. So to protect the lives of the innocent please keep all hands and feet inside the windows at all times. 

[Ralf11]

I didn't even know that grounding boxes had windows 

[wgscott]

9 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

Getting in a little deep there.

 

I'm simply saying that the claim, frequently recited here, that you shouldn't be critical of anything, regardless of how un-physical the claim might be, unless you have personally tried it, is completely fatuous.  

[Johnseye]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I didn't even know that grounding boxes had windows 

 

It's true and they're the best of all grounding boxes, but please don't ask me to test it.  Just take my word for it.

 

3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

I'm simply saying that the claim, frequently recited here, that you shouldn't be critical of anything, regardless of how un-physical the claim might be, unless you have personally tried it, is completely fatuous.  

 

I know.

[Jud]

I think the problem could possibly be resolved if the thread were renamed “Listening Impressions of Grounding Boxes and Similar Devices.”  Meanwhile, the OP has been fairly clear we should treat the thread as if it had been so named.

[Cornan]

I think it is quite fair to say that this thread belongs to grounding box believers. It is not about finding out if it is right or wrong in a scientific point of view or if it works or not in a technical point of view. Everyone that have tried a grounding box knows it works even if we cannot prove it like Einstein! ?

 

I am still curious just how they work and would be happy to start a thread for that purpose alone, so this thread could be kept for those of us that want to share real life experiances.

[Cornan]

Said and done! Here a new thread where believers & disbelievers are most welcome. Just keep it civil. No personal attacks please! ?