Grounding boxes - The real deal

[walpurgis]

I keep hearing about "open minds". I sense the term is being used almost dismissively to sideline anybody who has doubts about 'grounding boxes'. I have a very dubious view of these, simply because there is no logical basis that I can see for them having any real beneficial effect. Descriptions of what they actually do are to me at least specious. The mystery surounding the box contents is enough to immediately raise my suspicions and doubts. There are no 'magic crystals' out there, so why the coyness?

I reserve the right to not have to believe in these things! Or feel obliged to try one!!

[Marco]

I can say that, despite research over many decades, no proof, or even evidence of a sixth sense has emerged. Plenty of anecdotal reports, but nothing that has withstood rigorous testing in laboratory conditions. 'Believers' will say that this is because such powers are impaired by the 'stress' of test situations. Curiously, the same claim is made of perceived/claimed differences between audio components such as cables, which cannot be verified under blind testing.

Says who? Plenty of folk, including me (as indeed I outlined to Macca on another thread, only recently), have successfully identified differences in cables [both mains and signal], under blind conditions.

Plus, in terms of "rigorous testing in laboratory conditions" [whatever that means to you], no-one so far, as far as I know, has commissioned and paid for a peer-reviewed scientific study, into ascertaining whether cables make a difference, which is what that means to me. The costs would be considerable. And of course, given the nature of what's being tested for, it wouldn't be *automatically guaranteed* to produce conclusive results.

You're being guilty of the same type of superficial thinking, as Martin was before: namely applying as fact (to situations where you believe it acts as proof) that which only your experience [or our currently learning] dictates as true.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it *is* true (at least in the context in which you're applying it); perhaps simply as yet unproven differently - unless you consider that we know everything about the world we live in, how we function as humans, and therefore there is nothing further to learn...?

Clive's right. There's a lot of closed-mindedness starting to creep into this discussion, or rather the automatic stating as fact, that which simply best fits with our belief system.

Marco.

[Clive]

I keep hearing about "open minds". I sense the term is being used almost dismissively to sideline anybody who has doubts about 'grounding boxes'. I have a very dubious view of these, simply because there is no logical basis that I can see for them having any real beneficial effect. Descriptions of what they actually do are to me at least specious. The mystery surounding the box contents is enough to immediately raise my suspicions and doubts. There are no 'magic crystals' out there, so why the coyness?

I reserve the right to not have to believe in these things! Or feel obliged to try one!!

Let me state what prompted me to start talking about open minds. Dismissive comments continued to be made about perception above 20kHz after the link was posted to the paper where it showed there some response to said frequencies. Sure this is not proof that there's an impact for the audio world but I got the feeling that folks had not opened the link or found it to hard to read so dismissed it. I might be wrong about this as of course as I can't know what people have actually done.

As I alluded previously, I find it frustrating that some of these things have a positive benefit, in my head & heart I don't believe in them (or is that want to believe in them?) but when I hear a difference for myself then reluctantly I have to. That's me trying my best to be open minded...also I try not to totally diss something I've not heard - I might be dubious but I usually leave room to be convinced by my own ears.

[struth]

not sure a lab is the right conditions to conduct such a test anyway. Im not really into mains cable differences either, as ive not heard any, nor do i see much good reason for there to be any, BUT, that doesnt mean i would belittle anyone who does. They may hear things i dont, i've no idea. it may have a loose connection to grounding boxes too for all i know, or anyone else here for that matter.
nobody is insisting naysayers believe, but they shouldnt take the piss either.

[alphaGT]

I keep hearing about "open minds". I sense the term is being used almost dismissively to sideline anybody who has doubts about 'grounding boxes'. I have a very dubious view of these, simply because there is no logical basis that I can see for them having any real beneficial effect. Descriptions of what they actually do are to me at least specious. The mystery surounding the box contents is enough to immediately raise my suspicions and doubts. There are no 'magic crystals' out there, so why the coyness?

I reserve the right to not have to believe in these things! Or feel obliged to try one!!

I am with you here for the most part. I don’t doubt the testimony of those who have tried these things and say they work. But, the lack of reasoning does bother me. I do not believe in Magic, and I do not see why an accurate account of why it works should give away anyone’s secrets. Too often I hear of these “Night and Day”, results, only to find that these huge differences amount to .01%. Better? Yes, but ever so slight, and if you never heard it, you could live your life fully without it.

Whenever a component is reviewed, photos of the inside are almost always part of the reviewer’s work. And if I had just bought an expensive box of magic parts, the very first thing I would do is open that sucker up and look inside! So, it’s only a matter of time before someone shows a photo of the inside of this box. How long do they think it can be kept a secret? OK, it’s not snake oil, I believe you, but why the snake oil sales tactics? As in, “we have no idea why this really works, but we offer up some pseudo science theories that may explain it, and the product stands on testimony alone.”, I’ve heard it too many times before.

And with that I’ll add that if you have one and it works then I think that’s great. If I had that kind of money laying around, I might own one myself. I learned long ago, when it comes to audio, never say never.

Russell

[Marco]

Whenever a component is reviewed, photos of the inside are almost always part of the reviewer’s work. And if I had just bought an expensive box of magic parts, the very first thing I would do is open that sucker up and look inside! So, it’s only a matter of time before someone shows a photo of the inside of this box. How long do they think it can be kept a secret?

Indeed... In terms of the latter, the only problem is that said box will almost certainly be securely sealed, thus attempting to gain access to the internals, will also almost certainly result in significant damage - and would you want to damage something that has just cost £800 (or more), and subsequently turn it pretty much into an ornament?

Therefore, what you're suggesting, would require someone to buy one of these boxes, who's willing to spunk £800 (or more) in the process, simply for curiosity purposes....

OK, it’s not snake oil, I believe you, but why the snake oil sales tactics? As in, “we have no idea why this really works, but we offer up some pseudo science theories that may explain it, and the product stands on testimony alone.”, I’ve heard it too many times before.

+1. However, that's not to *dismiss* [constructively challenge, yes, but rudely pooh-pooh, no] someone's valid experiences who owns one of these products, outlining their perceived efficacy in the context of their system.

The fact is, however. products such as these, which have (as yet) no clearly defined and proven purpose, or indeed effect, are always going to be heavily scrutinised by those who are naturally inquisitive, in terms of discovering how things work (such is human nature), and in that process they may also come under heavy criticism.

Therefore, as the owner of one such product, you can't come here simply expecting a 'group hug' or pat on the back, because you've just discovered a new toy which you think does something wonderful... That might happen anyway, and I'd be pleased if it did, but your views are also entitled to be (constructively) challenged by those who choose to question them.

That, muchachos, is the nature of the beast. Therefore, if you buy one of these products, and report your experiences of using it on a hi-fi forum [ANY hi-fi forum, which allows *constructive* free speech], then be prepared for them to be subjected to such scrutiny. The difference here, is that we'll ensure that it's done nicely!

Marco.

[Clive]

I am with you here for the most part. I don’t doubt the testimony of those who have tried these things and say they work. But, the lack of reasoning does bother me. I do not believe in Magic, and I do not see why an accurate account of why it works should give away anyone’s secrets. Too often I hear of these “Night and Day”, results, only to find that these huge differences amount to .01%. Better? Yes, but ever so slight, and if you never heard it, you could live your life fully without it.

Whenever a component is reviewed, photos of the inside are almost always part of the reviewer’s work. And if I had just bought an expensive box of magic parts, the very first thing I would do is open that sucker up and look inside! So, it’s only a matter of time before someone shows a photo of the inside of this box. How long do they think it can be kept a secret? OK, it’s not snake oil, I believe you, but why the snake oil sales tactics? As in, “we have no idea why this really works, but we offer up some pseudo science theories that may explain it, and the product stands on testimony alone.”, I’ve heard it too many times before.

And with that I’ll add that if you have one and it works then I think that’s great. If I had that kind of money laying around, I might own one myself. I learned long ago, when it comes to audio, never say never.

Russell

I think what happens when we hear a change in our systems which we know very well, the change can seem significant. In a system that you are new to it's much harder to hear differences or the differences seem less significant.

Which is "correct" or "more valid" and what is the impact of this on blind testing using systems the listener is not familiar with?

[willbewill]

Please bear with me if what I ask has already been covered...but I'm trying to make sense of it.

I assume the cables are only connected to the 'grounds' of the rca connections on each piece of equipment?

I also assume it is assumed that most, if not all, of the interference noise is to be found on the ground planes, either from external RFI, mains noise and internal circuit/power noise. It would, I assume, be difficult to differentiate between signal and noise on the signal side of the circuits?

Therefore the 'ground box' 'drains' this interference noise from the ground planes thus 'freeing up' the signal, giving greater clarity/transparency which manifests itself in increased soundstage etc? I have experienced this in the past with 'dirty' mains supplies, even down to a Lenco turntable having its power supply being provided by a speed controller instead of directly from a mains supply where everybody in a room jawdropped when they heard the difference...most of them did not even know it had been changed but heard it.

Nobody care to make a comment?

[Clive]

Nobody care to make a comment?

Presumably the cleaning up is of signals at very high frequency, way above say 100kHz so when this if "drained" it would not remove any of the musical signal. That's the logic I apply here, whether it's correct I can't say.

[Marco]

I think what happens when we hear a change in our systems which we know very well, the change can seem significant. In a system that you are new to it's much harder to hear differences or the differences seem less significant.

Which is "correct" or "more valid" and what is the impact of this on blind testing using systems the listener is not familiar with?

Spot on, Clive. And therein lays the fundamental flaw in such blind testing!

That's the reason why I will *only* blind-test products in a familiar system, simply because you must start from the position of a known (sonic) benchmark, in order to accurately identify any change in such, and therefore, difference, from the use of whatever it is being tested.

It's not that blind testing, as a procedure in itself, is intrinsically flawed, but rather the methodology applied to test for the phenomenon in question - and therefore the results achieved can only ever be as accurate as allowed for by that methodology.

Marco.