anyone who tells you that EMI is "escaping" through a safety ground wire with the amount escaping being a discernible function of the wire diameter - that person is not to be trusted with anything pointier than a crayon...
So a "cute" way of saying the impedance of a conductor depends on the geometry of the materials, at very high frequencies, is a no-no, then ... ?
no. Nothing to do with impedance. His claim is that EMI (electro-magnetic interference) escapres (I'll take this as a euphamism for "is drained" or "bypassed") to ground through his supplementary wire.
Where should I start debunking this claim?
Shall I start with basic electro-magnetic theory which would identify that any EMI generated from the power cable (in this case) will continue to be generated as long as a current flows in that cable?
That is propagates as a field around the cable and is not inclined to then leap into an alternative ground wire (except that it may generate a voltage across and current in that wire)?
That the existing safety earth wire is sufficient tocarry upward of 15 amps continuously and that its unlikely to be troubled by the trifling amount of energy represented in some loose EMI cringing in the corner of a pre-amp enclosure (Dog help me, I'm starting to use pseudo-science ideas as if they are real...)?
Now, granted, I didn't read the entire thread, but the starting point indicated that the writer has at best a loose grip on the basic physics. I build this alongside his lack of knowledge of the basic measurement instrumentation that could be used to better effect than his ears in identifying changes in EMI and I really need go no further.
Edit: I made the mistake of reading on. He goes on to claim EMI "collects" in enclosures and must be given a pathway out through his alternative grounding wire. Truly nuttier than a fruitcake. The Science of noise reduction
Where should I start debunking this claim?
Shall I start with basic electro-magnetic theory which would identify that any EMI generated from the power cable (in this case) will continue to be generated as long as a current flows in that cable?
That is propagates as a field around the cable and is not inclined to then leap into an alternative ground wire (except that it may generate a voltage across and current in that wire)?
That the existing safety earth wire is sufficient tocarry upward of 15 amps continuously and that its unlikely to be troubled by the trifling amount of energy represented in some loose EMI cringing in the corner of a pre-amp enclosure (Dog help me, I'm starting to use pseudo-science ideas as if they are real...)?
Now, granted, I didn't read the entire thread, but the starting point indicated that the writer has at best a loose grip on the basic physics. I build this alongside his lack of knowledge of the basic measurement instrumentation that could be used to better effect than his ears in identifying changes in EMI and I really need go no further.
Edit: I made the mistake of reading on. He goes on to claim EMI "collects" in enclosures and must be given a pathway out through his alternative grounding wire. Truly nuttier than a fruitcake. The Science of noise reduction
Last edited:
To me you're missing the point I made in an earlier post - he's determining that a behaviour, which manifests as a change in the audio quality, is occurring. A natural reaction is to try and explain that in some meaningful way, to oneself at least; but because he can't do that in a completely coherent, technical sound way therefore his thinking is screwy and his experiences are to be completely discounted - is the reaction! Sorry, from my POV that is not an intelligent way of assessing what's going on - much better, to me, is: first, check if the behaviour is actual, repeatable; second, try to duplicate under different scenarios; third, come up with a solid explanation - that might actually lead to increased knowledge, miracles do happen, 😛 ...
no he hasn't. He's stated that he detects a change by listening. Having made a change and expecting to hear something. Its confirmation bias writ so large I'm surprised he can hear anything over the clanging sound of alarm bells.
If the testing and assessment methodology is screwy and the "technical" explanation is fanciful at best, and the phenomenon under question is already well researched documented and understood why would I waste my time?
Here's some increased knowledge for ya - some people don't know what they are doing and claim to know anyway. They tend to make wild claims and invent stuff to suit their pre-determined views. They invariably claim that they are right and the rest of the world is misguided and will catch up eventually. This is the take-away from the findings of the originator of the threads in question.
You should feel free to replicate his experiments if you like - but use relevant, recognised and validated assessment methods, not your ears.
If the testing and assessment methodology is screwy and the "technical" explanation is fanciful at best, and the phenomenon under question is already well researched documented and understood why would I waste my time?
Here's some increased knowledge for ya - some people don't know what they are doing and claim to know anyway. They tend to make wild claims and invent stuff to suit their pre-determined views. They invariably claim that they are right and the rest of the world is misguided and will catch up eventually. This is the take-away from the findings of the originator of the threads in question.
You should feel free to replicate his experiments if you like - but use relevant, recognised and validated assessment methods, not your ears.
Yes, that's how it starts - something is better, because our senses tell us that it is better; that's how mankind progresses, largely. If the methodology of assessing, measuring whether various types of distortion are more, or less significant to our subjective hearing had advanced beyond that of some 70 years ago, then "recognised" methods might be useful - since they apparently haven't, we're sorta stuffed in that regard ...
I only just got through the first post...this little nugget caught my eye:
I'll read some more if I can but maybe someone should introduce the Guy to Henry Ott as well as some other real EMC gurus.
Great fun thread, the noise referred to is probably mains hum due to some current path because grounds are at different potentials, hooking up thick wire to create a low resistance path is common place within electronics as a solution or to isolate the offending interconnection. Also this would fit in with the ability to detect EMI by ears as they are the only instrument sensitive enough....😱 Great for lower frequency signals that prefer the path of least resistance but as you move up through the EMI frequency spectrum other impedance paths dominate, of course there is an absolute shed load of this information available (I get the EMC journal free every month, never mind the books and web pages).
Alexander, I find this very interesting. What science is behind silver having the least signature/effect on sound?
Silver is the best conductor at stp; if it has one , would its signature not become illegible (inaudible) after passing through pc's, solder, crimp connectors, jacks, plugs, more solder, more components wire, transistors, or valves, attenuators , binding posts, more cable , more posts, crossovers et cetera, et cetera?
Having said that, I bought some Clairvoyant 22 gauge, gold plated occ wire to do all interconnects and speaker wire with the same stuff.
And gold plated copper crimp connectors to attach the wires to the speaker drivers.
RCA plugs and jacks refitted with solderless ones.
Net results?
It looks nice, and I have the comfort level of knowing I've simplified the input and outputs of my signal paths.
I have only subjective means of measuring the audible effects of this... However, I have no urge to tube roll, or swap wires, and seem to listen to Lps and CDs all the way through , now.
It could be the speakers too, I've settled on three preset crossover/ eq settings, one for movies, one for CDs, one for vinyl.
Having said that, I bought some Clairvoyant 22 gauge, gold plated occ wire to do all interconnects and speaker wire with the same stuff.
And gold plated copper crimp connectors to attach the wires to the speaker drivers.
RCA plugs and jacks refitted with solderless ones.
Net results?
It looks nice, and I have the comfort level of knowing I've simplified the input and outputs of my signal paths.
I have only subjective means of measuring the audible effects of this... However, I have no urge to tube roll, or swap wires, and seem to listen to Lps and CDs all the way through , now.
It could be the speakers too, I've settled on three preset crossover/ eq settings, one for movies, one for CDs, one for vinyl.
Hi,
Lower series resistance means an effective shortening of the path compared to copper.
Silver oxide still conducts relatively well so the wire does not degrade over time as quickly as copper wire.
Longer natural crystal structure than copper meaning less crystal boundaries (if that matters).
Cheers, 😉
Lower series resistance means an effective shortening of the path compared to copper.
Silver oxide still conducts relatively well so the wire does not degrade over time as quickly as copper wire.
Longer natural crystal structure than copper meaning less crystal boundaries (if that matters).
Cheers, 😉
fdegrove; Silver oxide still conducts relatively well so the wire does not degrade over time as quickly as copper wire. Longer natural crystal structure than copper meaning less crystal boundaries (if that matters). Cheers said:
Hmm, without peeking, no-one could distinguish copper from a potato. Or a banana. So pardon me for being a wee bit skeptical in the absence of any plausible explanations or actual evidence to the contrary.
Hi,
Do you happen to recall these series of WBT connectors that used crimping and screw clamping?
After a while these invariable started to come loose somehow creating all kinds of distortions.
Personally I much prefer a well soldered contact.
Cheers, 😉
Do you happen to recall these series of WBT connectors that used crimping and screw clamping?
After a while these invariable started to come loose somehow creating all kinds of distortions.
Personally I much prefer a well soldered contact.
Cheers, 😉
Then please don't fly in a commercial airplane!
Crimps are the only way to go for reliability in a hostile environment.
Go figure! is the phrase, I think.
But then, that is just solid rigorous engineering, rather than somebody just "winging it".
Last edited:
You could be right.
But placebos work sometimes.The peace of mind from knowing I've done what I could, to put the icing on a system I was pretty happy with, might make me believe I'm hearing better sound.
All the same, it's still the result I was after.
The copper crimp cons are not WBT- they are a product one of diyaudio's sponsors sources from a supplier near them, presumably in Ontario .
"Personally I much prefer a well soldered contact."
But when you fly, you place your trust in thousands of well engineered crimps.
But when you fly, you place your trust in thousands of well engineered crimps.
But airplanes make horrible noises, so that kind of proves the point. Crimping bad.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.