Of course it works, in exactly the same way as an actual ground works, but without the noise from the actual ground being sucked back into the amplifier by the speaker magnet, jeez 🙄
It's easy to test, just disconnect the speaker and see what happens.
I suspect the electronics design could be improved. Have not found the need to use them in my system.
It’s plausible. Maybe not the specific claims or any notion of good value for money but the idea that cleaning up mains/ground noise is beneficial. Obviously. It is a disconcerting reminder when someone uses a powerful hairdryer in the bathroom and my transformer in the lounge starts buzzing. 
It is interesting that no matter how ridiculous the claims, there will always be someone who pops up and defends them. It seems that in audio it is not possible to make a claim which is so outlandish that it will be universally rejected.
With DF96's thought in mind, is it possible this thread is inadvertently increasing the sale of snake oil items because we discuss them?
This thread is supposed to be about laughing at snake oil. Maybe we are spending too much time discussing (and thus giving the false impression that there is something worth discussing) and not enough time laughing. Rebutting snake oil claims cuts no ice with those who are too ignorant to understand the rebuttal, and too foolish to recognise their own ignorance.
The target audience for these nostrums is a very small % of our membership so there is little chance that a member here is going to read this thread and rush out to buy the devices we like to bash.. 😀
Lots of snake oil stuff in health foods. The health industry can’t reach a consensus on many things, and there is a wealth of contradictory results from studies.
This sounds like me. I have a old 480i tube TV and uses even today, with digial TV decoder on S-Video inputs. No need for 4k when watching at large distances and some good historic old TV programs, WHEN it "occurs" on TV grade (almost all time the TV programmation is bellow than crap). Sometimes I use an old laptop that have S-Video out. Is fun to see a 480i 4:3 "smart TV" with youTube and suchlikes 😛😀😀.
But this TV have some history:
Is a DIY TV... I made all PCB's and used a TDA9373N3 on-chip TV processor, for playing Playstation 2 back in 2005. Since I tuned-up aggressively almost all disponible parameters on analog processor, like carefully adjusted black levels, white levels, and using 4MHz sharpness "core" frequency instead the so-common 1-2MHz from most commercial tube TV sets, and used 9MHz video outputs (very good for 480i), the image quality is very good for such old 480i device... I like the CRT "half-tones" also; is not like cheap LCD/LED sets. Some people think that is a 720p TV...
My next playing will be to install a video input in my 1964 Telefunken only to watch some minutes of modern content at that old device (not for image quality, but for the fun)
I'm so antiquately type of guy because I use a Sony 1999 Trinitron monitor (the very expensive F99 chasssis) at 1600x1200x75Hz (Hi-End at that time) for playing dark scene games like Resident Evil series. Also for true movement and zero latency. Far better than crappy modern displays for that
(except OLED).hummm.... I'm eargely await OLED displays for my 4k acquisition (CRT-like blacks and better colour rendition than LCD-based tech) but the prices aren't going down...
Last edited:
I do miss my twin 19" CRTs, but I don't have desk space for them at home any more. 1600x1200 is a far more sensible resolution for computer work than most of the current crop of widescreens.
I like to rant on computer monitors. Why is 1080 just about the only resolution you can get? So the manufacturers can make more money. For the younger crowd: monitors used to have a .6 mm dot pitch ( the width of a pixel ) no matter what size the monitor was the logic was that the size didn't effect the viewing distance, you always sit 2' away. This way a letter was the same size on all monitors and equally legible. So a monitor that was twice the size had twice as many lines of text on it. And if you had 2 monitors side by side but they were different sizes the images were the same size on both. 20 years ago the studio had a 22" Radius that was 2000 lines resolution. (4/3). Why the big step backwards? Only reason I can think of is more profit for the manufacturers.
You're aware of how a LED pixel is made, right? Versus, painting a screen with an electron gun.
Notwithstanding some weird widescreen standards (which are pinned to the same vertical res as normal monitors), 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160 are standards. It's not that hard to do.
Notwithstanding some weird widescreen standards (which are pinned to the same vertical res as normal monitors), 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160 are standards. It's not that hard to do.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.