I don't either. If the Rochelle Salts do anything at all, there must be some physics behind it. In some cases similar to this we find there is some physical explanation and other times not.
However, when someone claims some unusual device works by way of noise reduction I am suspicious. If the device is doing anything real at all having to do with noise, it more often seems to be the case that the device is increasing noise rather than reducing it. But the noise type and its degree of signal correlation may make it seem to a listener like there is increased detail in reproduced music. Its an interesting psychoacoustic effect when that happens, but its not noise reduction.
A few thoughts from a different perspective: These "grounding boxes" could be seen as top-loaded antennas, which effect what most of us would avoid at all means: Ingression of HF into your setup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-antenna
By changing the lengths of the connecting wire between the box and the system, you can tune to your favorite radio station. Adding Rochelle salt on the plate does also change the resonance frequencies of this antenna, because it changes the capacitance of the plate.
The single wire extending the PE into a bag filled with Rochelle salt will also act as an antenna.
Could the Rochelle salt absorb noise on the PE? The explanation of ferroelectricity given above by @RainfallSky (post #26) requires the addition that dielectric permittivity is not a single number, but a complex quantity with a real part epsilon' (greek symbols not possible here?) and an imaginary epsilon", which is frequency dependent. The latter parameter models the dielectric loss, which, in fact, is substantial for Rochelle salt at low frequencies (kHz and below)^. But how could a layer of this material absorb "noise" while residing in a bag and in contact with the extended PE wire? For inducing polarisation in the crystals, the electrical field strengths are IMHO far too low (as one meter of wire does not radiate anything at 50 or 60 Hz). Rochelle salt shows some AC conduction, but where should the currents flow, when there is no return path? For me the addition of HF noise with its enhancement of "detail" is the most plausible explanation.
^) Malyshkina, I.A. (2002) Low-frequency dielectric spectra of Rochelle Salt and its deuterated analog in the range 260-315K. Inorganic Materials Vol 38, 380-384.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-antenna
By changing the lengths of the connecting wire between the box and the system, you can tune to your favorite radio station. Adding Rochelle salt on the plate does also change the resonance frequencies of this antenna, because it changes the capacitance of the plate.
The single wire extending the PE into a bag filled with Rochelle salt will also act as an antenna.
Could the Rochelle salt absorb noise on the PE? The explanation of ferroelectricity given above by @RainfallSky (post #26) requires the addition that dielectric permittivity is not a single number, but a complex quantity with a real part epsilon' (greek symbols not possible here?) and an imaginary epsilon", which is frequency dependent. The latter parameter models the dielectric loss, which, in fact, is substantial for Rochelle salt at low frequencies (kHz and below)^. But how could a layer of this material absorb "noise" while residing in a bag and in contact with the extended PE wire? For inducing polarisation in the crystals, the electrical field strengths are IMHO far too low (as one meter of wire does not radiate anything at 50 or 60 Hz). Rochelle salt shows some AC conduction, but where should the currents flow, when there is no return path? For me the addition of HF noise with its enhancement of "detail" is the most plausible explanation.
^) Malyshkina, I.A. (2002) Low-frequency dielectric spectra of Rochelle Salt and its deuterated analog in the range 260-315K. Inorganic Materials Vol 38, 380-384.
Made a ground box and it removed the hiss in my aca / fh3 system, by rca connection to a smsl d6.
Don’t know how it works but it sure makes the background noise-less. I just enjoy DIY without the burden of try to explain or understand.
Folks have made big bucks selling variations of this wraps and ground boxes.
Don’t know how it works but it sure makes the background noise-less. I just enjoy DIY without the burden of try to explain or understand.
Folks have made big bucks selling variations of this wraps and ground boxes.
May I ask how "hiss" relates to "background noise"? Not really clear to me, what your improvement was.
We should understand and accept that OP does experience “extraordinary” change in sound, by application of Rochelle salt. As is well known, that perception doesn’t have to be related to any existing real world effect. And, he is aware of that possibility (placebo effect mention).
He describes his source of inspiration, a fellow audiophile cdacosta, as a “seriously minded fellow”.
However, following the provided links,
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/aliexpress-cables.963919/post-17344726
ends with pictures of cdacosta’s system (browse the attachments to see all). Notice crystal pyramids on the audio devices? Probably this one (charged with positive intentions and that catches all negative energy around 🤣) ?
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/funniest-snake-oil-theories.234829/post-7157852
Followed by his discussion of precise changes in system reproduction caused by type of a single short piece of wire going to the fabled ground box …. or changes by sprinkling a spoon of different mineral to that ground box … cable directivity and whatnot … sorry, but he is a typical audiophool nut job.
I work very hard toward improving sound of my system. Evaluation of any change is by careful listening and extensive measurements to find any correlation, if possible.
It’s not an easy path and I would like nothing more than that placing some crystal pyramid in the listening room would make sound more clear, detailed and soundstage extending 100 m, or more, in all directions. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.
Unreliability of our perception makes us gullible to accept claims with no proof, made by fellow audio enthusiasts, or worse, to be exploited by snake oil peddlers. I will repeat myself once again with the following audiophool fairy tale:
One proverbial audiophool bought a good quality audio system and, after listening a while and visiting some audio forums, learned that his system can be improved.
Real problem is that some see this as an excellent improvement plan. Well, it’s their money.
As for the underlying physical effect of the Rochelle salt on radiated noise in the household environment, there isn’t enough EM field strength to provide enough coupling. Salt bag should work as a low impedance shunt, absorbing EM fields and converting them to heat. Not feasible.
He describes his source of inspiration, a fellow audiophile cdacosta, as a “seriously minded fellow”.
However, following the provided links,
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/aliexpress-cables.963919/post-17344726
ends with pictures of cdacosta’s system (browse the attachments to see all). Notice crystal pyramids on the audio devices? Probably this one (charged with positive intentions and that catches all negative energy around 🤣) ?
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/funniest-snake-oil-theories.234829/post-7157852
Followed by his discussion of precise changes in system reproduction caused by type of a single short piece of wire going to the fabled ground box …. or changes by sprinkling a spoon of different mineral to that ground box … cable directivity and whatnot … sorry, but he is a typical audiophool nut job.
I work very hard toward improving sound of my system. Evaluation of any change is by careful listening and extensive measurements to find any correlation, if possible.
It’s not an easy path and I would like nothing more than that placing some crystal pyramid in the listening room would make sound more clear, detailed and soundstage extending 100 m, or more, in all directions. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.
Unreliability of our perception makes us gullible to accept claims with no proof, made by fellow audio enthusiasts, or worse, to be exploited by snake oil peddlers. I will repeat myself once again with the following audiophool fairy tale:
One proverbial audiophool bought a good quality audio system and, after listening a while and visiting some audio forums, learned that his system can be improved.
- First, he bought power conditioner and sound was better. After some burn-in, sound was even better.
- Then, he bought a premium power cords. Sound was better. After some burn-in time, it was another notch better.
- Then, he bought premium interconnection cables, Sound was much better and after some burn-in even more.
- Then, he bought premium Quantum Fuses. Oh, what a huge sound upgrade, even more after burn-in.
- Then, he bought Synergystic Loudspeaker cables. Sound was much better.
- Next, he bought Organic Line cable elevators and sound was better.
- Then, he bought cable cooker and improved, for another several notches, all his cables. Sound was much, much better.
- Next, he bought ……. and sound was better.
Real problem is that some see this as an excellent improvement plan. Well, it’s their money.
As for the underlying physical effect of the Rochelle salt on radiated noise in the household environment, there isn’t enough EM field strength to provide enough coupling. Salt bag should work as a low impedance shunt, absorbing EM fields and converting them to heat. Not feasible.
I found a Russian paper written in 1955 or so regarding the use of Rochelle salts in handling emi in electrical systems.
Also is a patent from 1931 by the Navy.
Interesting that someone in the noise reduction business would find the material independently. Maybe his lunch had lots of the ingredients and was near the test setup or something?
Also is a patent from 1931 by the Navy.
Interesting that someone in the noise reduction business would find the material independently. Maybe his lunch had lots of the ingredients and was near the test setup or something?
Last edited:
Great post. Really like your list of the eight different so-called "improvements".
But the thing in many of these bogus claims that really intrigues me is the fairly frequent reference to "negative energy". That alone pretty much disqualifies the post, and the poster, for any serious further consideration.
Hiss is really easy to measure. You're talking about an actual signal level that was observed to be louder and then softer after a simple change. How about posting a before and after measurement? A spectrum analyzer app on a cell phone would work if you can control the environmental noise. An Oscilloscope looking at the amplifier output would work for sure. Hiss is going to be a white or pink noise above 1 kHz or so and if you can hear it will have content below 15 kHz. Of course you have to use all the same system settings for both measurements. Until you design the proper experiment, make measurements and write them down, it's very easy for absolutely anyone to be fooled and get it wrong. Every stereo equipment salesperson demonstrating equipment knows this very well. "Did you hear that? Wow" Said by every sales person ever.
It may not be hiss. If its signal-correlated noise its a little less simple to measure. Think of measuring resistor Excess Noise (not thermal noise). There are ways to do it, but an ohmmeter is not it.
Easy filtering between AC wires is a 600volt x2 capacitor. Got once 10uF MKP for realizing cut at low frequencies.
Learned it's good to put in line a fuse securing the cap against overvoltage from the net which can always occur.
Learned it's good to put in line a fuse securing the cap against overvoltage from the net which can always occur.
What is the self-resonance frequency of those caps? Is it below 2GHz? Probably EMI/RFI from a DECT cordless phone base station 10ft away will go right past such attempts at filtering. Not to mention wi-fi, cell phones, etc.
Easy and secure filtering is a x2 cap on the secondary side of a transformer.
Don't know where the limit is but why not taking MKP with more uF than usual like 2 to 10 uF
Don't know where the limit is but why not taking MKP with more uF than usual like 2 to 10 uF
With my amplifier design, I decided to go to extreme low noise and high EMI immunity route. By measurements and sound, it looks that it paid off well.
IMO, DIY builds mostly don’t pay enough attention to EMI induced noise suppression by design, which is more important these days than before. Crystal pyramids, ground boxes filled with minerals or bags of salt are not right solutions.
IMO, DIY builds mostly don’t pay enough attention to EMI induced noise suppression by design, which is more important these days than before. Crystal pyramids, ground boxes filled with minerals or bags of salt are not right solutions.
Most interesting approach to improve AC POWER (from my view) is this one:
https://www.toruspower.com/narrow-bandwidth-technology-nbt/
https://www.toruspower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Narow-Bandwidth-Technology.pdf
check out also this paper:
https://www.toruspower.com/wp-conte...Based-Solutions-to-Power-Quality-Problems.pdf
both I have saved here because links after certainly time often dead
https://www.toruspower.com/narrow-bandwidth-technology-nbt/
https://www.toruspower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Narow-Bandwidth-Technology.pdf
check out also this paper:
https://www.toruspower.com/wp-conte...Based-Solutions-to-Power-Quality-Problems.pdf
both I have saved here because links after certainly time often dead
This concept removes differential mode noise occuring between mains lines.
Every rectifier-cap combination filters that down to neglible levels
Any amp that is sensitive to differential mains noise should be considered faulty..
Thus this is a solution to a non existing problem.
Every rectifier-cap combination filters that down to neglible levels
Any amp that is sensitive to differential mains noise should be considered faulty..
Thus this is a solution to a non existing problem.
There maybe some really polluted mains somewhere nowadays.
It these disturb measurable the sound I would consider filtering of common mode noise,
which is a different beast.
It these disturb measurable the sound I would consider filtering of common mode noise,
which is a different beast.
On the subject of differential to common mode conversion and vice versa, please see the attached. Its part of how EMI/RFI slips, hops, and skips around means intended to keep it out. The other part has to do with conversion between conducted and radiated modes of propagation. Say, isn't all this stuff in Ott, anyway?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.