Edit for post above (30 mins expired):
Along with a primary fuse for the 1:1 transformer, further protection could be added in the form of a pair of beefy low breakdown voltage transient supression diodes, connected in reverse-parallel between the 1:1 transformers secondary centre tap and mains/chassis earth.
Along with a primary fuse for the 1:1 transformer, further protection could be added in the form of a pair of beefy low breakdown voltage transient supression diodes, connected in reverse-parallel between the 1:1 transformers secondary centre tap and mains/chassis earth.
Jakob2 said:
I can barely imagine what would constitute proof of an individual *not* hearing, seeing, etc... something. You know, black is black is black. And so is silence. Again, an excursion in the Aristotelian logic and the use of logical operators of "existence" and "whatever" will help here.
But then nobody in the subjective camp gives a rat's *** on formal logic and proof theory. They reject the scientific methodology as a whole and that, to me, closes any possible further significant discussion. All I can say is that I don't give the same rat's *** if they hear something, as long as they put it as an individual experience, avoiding any generalization.
AndrewT said:
Sorry, i didn´t realize that already double insulated devices are installed too.
Normally double insulated equipment would not need the equipotential bonding as additional safety is already incorporated.
But in a complex (and mixed) installation great care is needed to prevent any life threatening possibility.
As i don´t know (of course can imagine up to a certain point 🙂 ) why you would like to realize a disconnected earth system, it is a bit hard to generalize.
Maybe there is a filtering solution for any HF content on the earth connection? (If that could be the problem)
If the main idea (quite inspiring) is to get total control about any equilization current than i´d assume that reconstruction of every device wrt to GND-Earth connection is required.
Could be quite challenging but really promising. 🙂
janneman said:
Yes, that´s true.
This problem is the reason why normally only one device shall be connected at once to the secondary of an isolation transformer.
syn08 said:
Imagine, that someone doesn´t hear something, because he doesn´ t believe in it.
You know, what you think about your perception is not the same as what you really hear.
A possible solution would be sort of a triple blind test, incorporating some positive controls that have to be heard to show that the participant at least hears something on a sufficient level, and the "questionable tweak" itsself.
As usual that can´t be a formal prove (but that holds true for every listening test), but could be a very interesting exercise. 🙂
About your second sentence; yes, that happens, but can´t surely be generalized.
Otoh in the socalled objectivist camp a lot of members don´t really rely on scientific methodology, otherwise they wouldn´t accept the results of tests that are not on par to scientific standards.
That´s sometimes a pity with objectivism, you have always to question your own position. 🙂
Jakob2 said:
Not only that, you have to provide all possibly relevant information related to your position to enable others to prove you wrong. The reward comes afterwards: if your position survives all those attacks, you can be pretty sure that your position represents a genuine fact.
Of course, all this is only of interest if you want to know the value of your position. If your position is only used to convince others to throw large amounts of money and/or honor at you, you probably couldn't care less, and would probably even actively resist finding out the objective value of your postion.
Many examples of both these cases can be found in this forum and this thread.
Jan Didden
SY said:
Unfortunately, i had to dig deeper into the double blind studies on cancer treatment and that is really depressing stuff to read. Given the nature of the disease i don´t think that it is an appropriate example for our discussion right here.
Please remember, we are talking about audio, nothing that is potential life threatening if you think a "whatever tweak" makes your system sound better.
As i´ve said before, a lot of our belief about hearing thresholds is based on work done by others (often a long time ago), and often is not as reliable as it should be. Unfortunately in the audio field the scientific standards aren´t as high as in other fields. (And these other fields aren´t error free as well)
Just for an example read the papers about the equipotential loudness contours. It´s amazing what has been studied over the years and in which way and what conclusion have been drawn ... .
Darn, and I thought that the 'love beads' would charge up my sex life!
(About as relevant as what was expressed here on the same material, last night when I was asleep.)
(About as relevant as what was expressed here on the same material, last night when I was asleep.)
As for the objectivists vs. subjectivists camps.
Voicing my listening room (setting up the listening point and the speakers points), I use my ears, not any scientific study.
The same goes for acoustic treatment of the listening room.
The same goes for choosing components, from speakers to interconnects.
Since I do it for my own listening enjoyment, there's nothing for me to prove to anyone else, neither empirically nor scientifically.
For participants here from the objectivist camp.
How do you voice, or set up, your listening room other than by your ears?
Is there any proved scientific way to do it?
Voicing my listening room (setting up the listening point and the speakers points), I use my ears, not any scientific study.
The same goes for acoustic treatment of the listening room.
The same goes for choosing components, from speakers to interconnects.
Since I do it for my own listening enjoyment, there's nothing for me to prove to anyone else, neither empirically nor scientifically.
For participants here from the objectivist camp.
How do you voice, or set up, your listening room other than by your ears?
Is there any proved scientific way to do it?
afair, rooms supplied by isolation transformers have to be 'earth-free' or need special isolation and leakage detectors.
I don't understand why one would spoil his safe and reliable working mains wiring just for a questionable 'audiophool' benefit. 😕
Regards
I don't understand why one would spoil his safe and reliable working mains wiring just for a questionable 'audiophool' benefit. 😕
Regards
Joshua_G said:
Yes, and I am surprised that you, as a former record engineer, are not aware of such.
ok, but you can supply several selected pieces of equipment with one movable transformer and don't need to interfere with the rooms wiring.
Regards
Regards
john curl said:
There are other means for that, which seems a lot more attractive to me.
Magura 🙂
I have the UL/CE standards. Give me a day or two to look up the specs.
I think I've got the medical standards too. Have to check.
I think I've got the medical standards too. Have to check.
Jakob2 said:
OK, no more sarcasm. People are so sensitive even to the point of asking the moderators to censor it. Personally I think the garbage physics clutters up some threads as well as providing a distraction to those that have a hard enough time following them in the first place.
I'll stick with the soft cushions.
In the US you can use "balanced power" (60v-0-60v) if you use a GFI on all of the connected outlets. A GFI (ground fault interrupter) is a good thing anyway since it senses the real safety concern- power going somewhere it shouldn't.
An isolation transformer brings a lot of benefits when used correctly. It can reduce hum and broadband noise on the powerline a lot. But you should understand what it is actually doing or you won't get much benefit. The transformer intrinsically reduces noise coupling from the input to the output. An "ultra isolation" transformer can have as little as .001 pF coupling from input to output, a major noise reduction. However if the grounding isn't managed properly between the input and the output for the application this isolation will be essentially defeated. I suggest drawing out the complete circuit including leakage paths and stray current paths to understand where noise is coming and going. Include the leakage through the transformers etc. and where that leakage would return to. If you don't go through this exercise you won't necessarily get any hum reduction, and it could increase. Often balanced power will increase hum where isolated power will reduce it.
In terms of leakage keep in mind that 1 mA of leakage current across 1 Ohm of wiring will yield 1 mV of signal, only 66 dB below the full output of a CD player. The allowable leakage current for a power line filter to ground is 5 mA per the last UL standard I looked at.
US practice (similar in the rest of the western hemisphere and Taiwan) is quite different from Europe, Asia, and Japan. Local rules must be consulted. In the US the local rules are very local, down to the individual city.
Someone pointed out the Japan practice of two pin power connections. Not well known is the Japanese practice of adding a small cap from one side of the supply to the chassis. This can either increase or decrease the leakage from the mains supply to the chassis. In Japan 2 pin unpolarized power connectors are universal. I'm not sure but I don't believe the US style 3 pin connections are in use there at all.
An isolation transformer brings a lot of benefits when used correctly. It can reduce hum and broadband noise on the powerline a lot. But you should understand what it is actually doing or you won't get much benefit. The transformer intrinsically reduces noise coupling from the input to the output. An "ultra isolation" transformer can have as little as .001 pF coupling from input to output, a major noise reduction. However if the grounding isn't managed properly between the input and the output for the application this isolation will be essentially defeated. I suggest drawing out the complete circuit including leakage paths and stray current paths to understand where noise is coming and going. Include the leakage through the transformers etc. and where that leakage would return to. If you don't go through this exercise you won't necessarily get any hum reduction, and it could increase. Often balanced power will increase hum where isolated power will reduce it.
In terms of leakage keep in mind that 1 mA of leakage current across 1 Ohm of wiring will yield 1 mV of signal, only 66 dB below the full output of a CD player. The allowable leakage current for a power line filter to ground is 5 mA per the last UL standard I looked at.
US practice (similar in the rest of the western hemisphere and Taiwan) is quite different from Europe, Asia, and Japan. Local rules must be consulted. In the US the local rules are very local, down to the individual city.
Someone pointed out the Japan practice of two pin power connections. Not well known is the Japanese practice of adding a small cap from one side of the supply to the chassis. This can either increase or decrease the leakage from the mains supply to the chassis. In Japan 2 pin unpolarized power connectors are universal. I'm not sure but I don't believe the US style 3 pin connections are in use there at all.
@ scott_Wurcer,
Maybe, but does a sarcastic remark firing up the ongoing grand debate, followed by a few dozen post basically doing the same, really lessen the distraction? 🙂
It might be the language barrier, but i feel the style of discussion on this forums has changed to a more aggressive one in a lot of threads.
Maybe, but does a sarcastic remark firing up the ongoing grand debate, followed by a few dozen post basically doing the same, really lessen the distraction? 🙂
It might be the language barrier, but i feel the style of discussion on this forums has changed to a more aggressive one in a lot of threads.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.