Grounding boxes - The real deal

[Macca]

The ASA is a self regulatory organisation i.e it is run by the advertisers in the same way as the Press Complaints Commission is run by the newspapers. It has no statutory powers.

[Firebottle]

To answer Martin first, the kit was as follows:

Nova x50d streamer, Tad d1000 dac, Coherent Systems Pre-amp, Coherent Systems digital (switching) power amp.

Most of the music listened to was Red Book (44.1/16 bit) quality on the Nova.

When assessing the grounding box influence the volume setting was untouched. The demonstrated improvements were done in 3 steps. The ONLY thing that was altered was the number of cables from the grounding box connected to the pre-amp and dac. No connections were made to the streamer or power amp.

Step 1. Connect one cable to the pre-amp, an unused input, left channel - totally irrelevant.
Step 2. Connect one more cable to the pre-amp, an unused input, right channel.
Step 3. Connect the other 8 cables to other inputs/tape loop (unused) and a spare SPDIF input on the dac. I don't know the exact connections for all 8.

On each step the improvement was NOT subtle. If I had been blindfolded that wouldn't have made a scrap of difference, in fact I could have been standing outside the room in the hallway and still noticed the difference.

Now to Simon.
There is no 'unknown' science here, it is just reducing the electrical pollutants that mask the soundstage that is already there in the music.
No changes were made to the file, delivery method or volume level.

The difficulty that anyone has, myself included, is how can this work when all one is doing is adding a passive device into a system. The problem also is that you don't hear the 'pollutants', you just hear the depth in the music that was already there once the masking effect is removed.

The ASA would have nothing to investigate, the actual levels of 'pollutants' are completely irrelevant. The perceived difference is all you need to hear.
The 'HF noise' is nothing to do with audible noise, it is all the internal and external radio frequency pollutants that cover an extremely wide bandwidth.

[Macca]

I'm struggling with a couple of things here.

presumably the system sounded acceptable before any connections were made?

Then 1 connection is made and the improvement is so great that blind testing it would be nonsense.

Then a second connection is made and again the improvement is not subtle

Then a third....

I mean there is a limit to how much sound quality can be improved (in theory up to the limits of the quality of the recording). To have three 'not subtle' jumps up in quality seems unlikely - unless the starting system was badly flawed. Was it badly flawed?

[Firebottle]

I'm struggling with a couple of things here.

presumably the system sounded acceptable before any connections were made?

Then 1 connection is made and the improvement is so great that blind testing it would be nonsense.

Then a second connection is made and again the improvement is not subtle

Then a third....

I mean there is a limit to how much sound quality can be improved (in theory up to the limits of the quality of the recording). To have three 'not subtle' jumps up in quality seems unlikely - unless the starting system was badly flawed. Was it badly flawed?

If I was in your position I would be asking the very same questions. There were no flaws. Let me try to put some description to it, though very simplified to show differences in scale.
The system sounded very good to start with, as you might expect with the equipment used. Lets say the image was between and behind the speakers.

Step 1 gave a 50% increase in image width and depth.
Step 2 gave another 50% increase in image width and depth. Plus I was thinking 'where has all that bass come from?' It was there in the first place but now sounds that much more tangible. I was told this is a common reaction.
Step 3 and you are suddenly in the Albert Hall. It's not that the players have suddenly moved it is just that the ambience is there.

This is simplified, the snap, the attack and decay, the sheer fluidity of the performance just jumps out at you.
Once heard it is difficult to believe that it all comes from Red Book.

[jandl100]

There is always room for improvement.

[Pharos]

I'm also struggling Macca, a while ago a technical measurement showed a large increase in noise, and these previous posts are saying that the noise is reduced.

[Macca]

I'm also struggling Macca, a while ago a technical measurement showed a large increase in noise, and these previous posts are saying that the noise is reduced.

That measurement was of the Entreq grounding box, Alan is talking about the RTZ grounding box, they are different products so not necessarily identical in construction or operation.

[Firebottle]

That measurement was of the Entreq grounding box, Alan is talking about the RTZ grounding box, they are different products so not necessarily identical in construction or operation.

The 'measurement' involved with Entreq box is a complete red herring. The only things involved were an analyser, a cable and the box. Having no audio system involved cannot be correlated to any effect on an audio system.

To my mind all that test showed was that the Entreq box was something that would absorb wideband noise. Substitute 'pick-up' for absorb if you wish.
That noise was coming from somewhere, perhaps the analyser?

[NRG]

The 'measurement' involved with Entreq box is a complete red herring. The only things involved were an analyser, a cable and the box. Having no audio system involved cannot be correlated to any effect on an audio system.

To my mind all that test showed was that the Entreq box was something that would absorb wideband noise. Substitute 'pick-up' for absorb if you wish.
That noise was coming from somewhere, perhaps the analyser?

To be fair the analyser base noise floor was tested so the above is unlikely but I agree the results would have had more weight if an audio system where involved.

[walpurgis]

I managed to remove all noise from my system. I turned it off!