A hospital generally has a power system designed from the ground up for hospital tasks and equipment to be installed there is designed to work with that. I am not sure where the link is to domestic audio or a studio.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...a/file/148499/Annex_to_MEIGaN_-_June_2005.pdf
How UK hospitals have the earthing setup. Std equipotential bonding and nothing like the referenced wikipedia page describes recording studios.
How UK hospitals have the earthing setup. Std equipotential bonding and nothing like the referenced wikipedia page describes recording studios.
This thread is supposed to be about "funniest snake oil theories", which I assume also subsumes products which are claimed to be instantiations of those theories. Always good for a laugh. Of course the discourse always descends to personal criticism and making light of the strongly held beliefs of others. I have done a little of that myself.
One commonality among arguments provided by both subjectivists and objectivists is the notion of " training", which suggests that listeners ought to be trained to hear certain characteristics of recorded sound. Now I certainly have no objection to the idea that people who design or evaluate audio gear for a living ought to know what harmonic distortion (or even a specific percentage of THD) sounds like, along with other sonic flaws. But it seems like as we approach the limits of audibility, both sides tell us that it is unlikely that we will hear certain differences, which may or may not even exist, unless we are "trained" listeners indulging in "critical listening". So according to subjectivists, if we don't hear these " obvious" differences then either we are not trained listeners or our audio systems are not sufficiently "resolving" (though the differences we don't hear are not subtle). Now objectivists tell us that we can train ourselves to hear and recognize real, but very subtle, audible differences, but it still requires careful listening.
So even if I accept all of that, what has any of it got to do with my enjoyment of recorded music? Am I expected to use "critical listening" to identify recording!playback errors rather than enjoying a musical performance? What would that buy me? I agree with folks on both sides that the music and the performance are more important than the sound. But if that is true, then why am I expected to waste my time trying to hear subtle differences among gear that may not even exist? Am I really expected to play a recording of music and waste my time trying to detect something wrong, rather than enjoying the music?
I really don't care whether I can, with careful listening, detect the difference between two things. In my daily life, as long as there isn't something horribly wrong with my playback chain (and there is because I play a lot of vinyl) it's all good. Just because I can detect something doesn't mean it dominates my musical enjoyment.
Of course as DIYers we like to build nice gear. There are days when I listen to music through my system and I am thrilled with what I hear, though I know it is not the finest system. On the other hand I have been thrilled by a piece of music on a cheap AM car radio.
One commonality among arguments provided by both subjectivists and objectivists is the notion of " training", which suggests that listeners ought to be trained to hear certain characteristics of recorded sound. Now I certainly have no objection to the idea that people who design or evaluate audio gear for a living ought to know what harmonic distortion (or even a specific percentage of THD) sounds like, along with other sonic flaws. But it seems like as we approach the limits of audibility, both sides tell us that it is unlikely that we will hear certain differences, which may or may not even exist, unless we are "trained" listeners indulging in "critical listening". So according to subjectivists, if we don't hear these " obvious" differences then either we are not trained listeners or our audio systems are not sufficiently "resolving" (though the differences we don't hear are not subtle). Now objectivists tell us that we can train ourselves to hear and recognize real, but very subtle, audible differences, but it still requires careful listening.
So even if I accept all of that, what has any of it got to do with my enjoyment of recorded music? Am I expected to use "critical listening" to identify recording!playback errors rather than enjoying a musical performance? What would that buy me? I agree with folks on both sides that the music and the performance are more important than the sound. But if that is true, then why am I expected to waste my time trying to hear subtle differences among gear that may not even exist? Am I really expected to play a recording of music and waste my time trying to detect something wrong, rather than enjoying the music?
I really don't care whether I can, with careful listening, detect the difference between two things. In my daily life, as long as there isn't something horribly wrong with my playback chain (and there is because I play a lot of vinyl) it's all good. Just because I can detect something doesn't mean it dominates my musical enjoyment.
Of course as DIYers we like to build nice gear. There are days when I listen to music through my system and I am thrilled with what I hear, though I know it is not the finest system. On the other hand I have been thrilled by a piece of music on a cheap AM car radio.
When taken to extremes critical listening (in the technical rather than artistic sense) can result in outcomes which are both comic and sad - you know, that guy who has the $50k audio system and owns about 20 CDs of dubious artistic merit which he uses to evaluate how well the system is sounding or the relative merits of his latest upgrade. You are never allowed to just listen to music in his home.
I often think that the ratio of software to hardware expenditure can distinguish a true music lover from an audiophool quite easily.
Critical listening certainly has its applications, but should be exercised in moderation if one wants to engage in emotionally satisfying listening experiences using a wide range of sources.
I often think that the ratio of software to hardware expenditure can distinguish a true music lover from an audiophool quite easily.
Critical listening certainly has its applications, but should be exercised in moderation if one wants to engage in emotionally satisfying listening experiences using a wide range of sources.
Last edited:
^ if only another layer should be there for the tech nerds for tech nerd's sake. Many here have "over-hardware'd" simply because they like overbuilding things and it's fun to design. There's plenty of value in the intellectual exercise.
And I'm sure someone else will come along with another entirely reasonable justification.
And I'm sure someone else will come along with another entirely reasonable justification.
Haha, I'm not that generous! Lots of cockamamie things done in DIY for cockamamie reasons. Then again a lot of (excessive) good engineering around, too. That's, IMO, the fun stuff. 😀
Try and find Tony Waldrons EMC Rants, he covers this method I believe and others. I am struggling to find a link but believe I have PDFs.
Let's just de-static our spinning vinyl by growing plants on the turntable base....
.....perhaps ferns and moss ?
(actually, that would work, raising humidity)
.....perhaps ferns and moss ?
(actually, that would work, raising humidity)
Last edited:
DIY.......Moss Grown HiFi Turntable De-Static Base....brush concrete or earthen turntable base with pond water and fertilizer for two weeks.
Keep moist.
Add moss spores of choice, maybe some lichen if none develop spontaneously.
Isolate motor from humidity.....in the usual way.
Keep entire turntable in a terrarium-like enclosure.
Do not introduce jumping toads.
Keep moist.
Add moss spores of choice, maybe some lichen if none develop spontaneously.
Isolate motor from humidity.....in the usual way.
Keep entire turntable in a terrarium-like enclosure.
Do not introduce jumping toads.
Last edited:
Good post, thanks. But as an audio diy-er you need a reason to build new gear, even if it is an imagined reason. That's how people work
One common reason that is obvious is to build a 'better' amp, speaker etc. Then what is 'better'? That's when the trouble starts...
Jan
Wikipedia, quoted by cbdb:
It seems to me that this neatly illustrates a serious confusion between signal ground and safety ground, and may exhibit the false idea of ground as a 'sink' for anything unwanted in a system. Have I misunderstood it? The fact that it may be common practice is not evidence that it is correct.
I had a trawl of the IET forums last night and it does appear BBC used this. However there are now agreed and binding standards around equipotential bonding which have no truck with seperate rods in the soil for a studio/home system!
Ignoring earth loops for a minute, as they can be fixed by addressing pin1 issues we are left with EMC and ensuring coupled radiation is sent somewhere to die, which is well specified for applications outside boutique products for the weak minded.
But if everything is designed for operation off a standard plug where in audio would you need anything beyond a properly wired power feed with to spec earthing? If you refit completely with mesh under the floor and everything bonded to give screening then you can have several earth busbars, but they all leave the room on the same fat yellow and green wire?
It can turn out to be a clear case of re-inventing the wheel. Not that doing such things is always bad, but then it is just a training exercise. If you've already done the training exercise several times, well then that may raise some questions about your trainability.
You may find that playing with open-circuited grounds satisfies your curiosity because of your lack of training and experience, but for those of us who have done this sort of thing many times...
Why should this not be taken as a bluff?
I've been spending more time in hospitals than I want just lately, and I see a lot of very conventional grounding in play.
And I even know how to show respect for my readers and those who disagree with them by providing a relevant reference:
Grounding Requirements for Health Care Wiring
Looks like motherhood and apple pie to me.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.