PS Audio Noise Harvester

[MortFurd]

While the "harvester" is hyped, the demo and waveforms are consistent with what I now believe the design to be. Nothing wrong with the scope pics either. They are triggering, probably with hf reject, near the 60hz signal peak. Horizontal is 100us/div. Vertical scale offset would be used to center the signal. The alteration in waveform is about what I would expect for this design. Strong attenuation of high freq and conversion to a lower freq ringing.

Not that it should make any difference in well designed equipment.

It's a bleeding blinky powered on powerline noise at 8kHz and above.

The primary question is never answered:
How much power does it dissipate?

Ask yourself how bright that LED would light if it were dissipating any serious amount of power.

Since they claim to have to store the noise in a capacitor for later disposal, it sounds very much like they get damned little 8kHz noise and have to collect for a while to get enough to light an LED. Not real awe inspiring.

 

[ExtremeSkeptic]

3. Untrained? I spent 10 years working with scopes daily. I've built audio frequency signal analysers. I think I bloody well understand how to read what is shown on the scope face.

That's the problem with engineers, if they have done something their whole life they want to make themselves believe they know everything about everything while others know nothing. If they would realize the truth that they don't know what they are doing then they would get sad. 10 years is nothing, 10000 years is nothing... Numbers don't matter, only the truth does. But for some reason skeptics like to show a number like it means something. It's like a badge that they brag about to everyone out on the streets.

Ego man: BAM look at my impressive badge, I got it from looking at a scope for 10 years straight! I still don't know what I'm looking at but the badge is impressive isn't it?
Truth boy: Who are you?
Ego man: I am someone who knows everything about everything, that's why I'm showing you my badge, impressed?
Truth boy: No.
Ego man: You need to be.
Truth boy: But...
Ego man: No buts! Now bow down to my badge! 10 years you see this!!?

Why don't you take some of the money you are raking in and actually attend some engineering courses? Specifically, one dealing with the usage of oscilloscopes. You really need help, there.

 

[MortFurd]

That's the problem with engineers, if they have done something their whole life they want to make themselves believe they know everything about everything while others know nothing. If they would realize the truth that they don't know what they are doing then they would get sad. 10 years is nothing, 10000 years is nothing... Numbers don't matter, only the truth does. But for some reason skeptics like to show a number like it means something. It's like a badge that they brag about to everyone out on the streets.

Ego man: BAM look at my impressive badge, I got it from looking at a scope for 10 years straight! I still don't know what I'm looking at but the badge is impressive isn't it?
Truth boy: Who are you?
Ego man: I am someone who knows everything about everything, that's why I'm showing you my badge, impressed?
Truth boy: No.
Ego man: You need to be.
Truth boy: But...
Ego man: No buts! Now bow down to my badge! 10 years you see this!!?

How's about you learn to even read a scope and understand what the settings are before you criticize someone else? I've discussed what is shown, and the comments made by psaudio. The two together are complete and utter bollocks.

The photos of that system you are so proud of show a complete and utter lack of understanding of all things electronic. How about the one where you have audio cables mixed in with PC power supply cables? That must be really good for your audio, especially since you take such pains to "shield" all of your equipment, going so far as to disassemble things and stuffing them full of conductive paper.

 

[pchams]

There's no fool like an audiophool.

Save your money and buy a Furman or Sola UPS.
At least you'll get line conditioning and back up power.

 

[marting]

Why don't you take some of the money you are raking in and actually attend some engineering courses? Specifically, one dealing with the usage of oscilloscopes. You really need help, there.

1. The scope is set to DC coupling on the channel you are measuring. You actually have a DC level of 20Volts with a spike on it.

2. The time base is set to 100microseconds per centimeter. Were there any 60Hz AC in the signal being measured, there would be a significant curve to the shown signal. The width of the screen is 10 centimeters, which is 1000 microseconds, commonly known as 1 millisecond. One cycle of 60Hz AC is 16.7 milliseconds. One half wave is therefore ~8.3 milliseconds. 1/8 of a semicircle would be quite noticeable on the scope picture. The peak of a half wave AC (in the US) would be ~77Volts - 1/8 of that would be about 2 cm on the scope. Even granting worst case (you hit the sine wave exactly at peak in the center of your scope picture) there would still be a downturn of the scope trace of ~1.5Volts at the right and left edges of the picture. That's 3 mm on the scope screen, enough to be seen easily. That's a hash mark and a half, since scopes usually have 2mm hash marks (which your does.)

I get about 3 volts: 170 - 170*Cos(.0005*60*2*Pi)

3. Triggering on DC does not mean (as you imply) that AC is ignored. The scopes are not built to filter anything, with two exceptions a) Frequencies above the scope's design limits are lost and b) DC can be filtered out when measuring AC.

On some of your later comments:
1. If you are using 10X probes, your situation becomes really BAD. The power calculations I wnet through go up by that same factor of 10, and you will be trying to dump more power through a poor little LED - and from the photos that other have posted in this thread, you aren't even using an LED designed for high current. All I see is what looks like a 5mm LED. If you are using a 10X probe, that spike becomes 120Volts. Ouch for your LED.

2. Further clarification: A 10X probe DIVIDES the input signal by 10, so that you must multiply the shown voltage by 10 to get the correct value. Are you telling me you used a 1X probe on a scope set for 10X?

3. Untrained? I spent 10 years working with scopes daily. I've built audio frequency signal analysers. I think I bloody well understand how to read what is shown on the scope face.

4. Powering the LED on noise over 8kHz is no sweat. It won't do you much good, but you can make it blink. So what? I can make an LED blink using nothing but the miniscule amount of power that a crystal radio can receive. Blinking an LED proves bloody zip about power dissipation.

5. Again, if you were dissipating any amount of power capable of making a difference to a properly built amplifier (see Schneibter's info on noise rejection and power supply design) an LED capable of handling that amount of power would blink like a bleeding strobe light.

The noise dependent blinking LED is a clever marketing idea. The blinking reinforces the idea it is doing something.

6. Your description of the operation of the gadget makes quite clear just what is going on. You are powering a blinky on the noise on the powerline. Do you know just how little energy it takes to make a blinky run? Properly designed, a blinky can run on a single AA cell for a year. Your "harverster" isn't neccessarily "harvesting" any significant amount of power at all.

I'm sure he knows exactly how little energy this takes.

7. Were your device actually effective, it would be more so if you just attached a high power (5watt or more) low resistance resistor to the output of your tranformer. The resistor could dissipate far more power than that poor little LED.

8. Since your scope pictures do NOT show AC, they are at best staged. I consider them to be out and out lies, however, as the staging could only be done to conceal the ineffectiveness of your device. Staging it would allow you to control the impedance of all the signals involved - including the impedance of the spike - which would let you show a higher reduction in the voltage of the spike. What's the current flow during the spike?

Clearly the 120VAC is not part of the scoped waveform and also the scope was hooked up to a breadboard, not a finished device. I think the claim was they were observing the "noise" which is rather non-specific.

How much power does your "harverster" dissipate? Simple question, and you should have the answer to hand - if you have the slightest clue what you are doing.

That doesn't have a single answer. Power dissipated would depend on the noise freq and amplitude content. It obviously has some non-linear parts which further adds to the complexity. Probably not much of an issue with the signal shown depending on impedances which are not shown. Usually a bit under an ohm.
I do believe it reduces line noise somewhat. If you hear 60hz harmonics in your system it may diminish them somewhat. A more traditional line filter would probably be better though.

Please remember that not everyone on this planet is ignorant of basic facts of electricty and the use of test equipment.

 

[marting]

It's a bleeding blinky powered on powerline noise at 8kHz and above.

The primary question is never answered:
How much power does it dissipate?

Ask yourself how bright that LED would light if it were dissipating any serious amount of power.

Since they claim to have to store the noise in a capacitor for later disposal, it sounds very much like they get damned little 8kHz noise and have to collect for a while to get enough to light an LED. Not real awe inspiring.

There is not much power in light dimmer noise. Further, a shunting filter tries to approximate zero impedance at the noise freqs of interest. Attaching the caps directly across the input line would provide a slightly lower hf noise impedance than what his circuit does but it wouldn't have the blinky.

Also, maximizing the noise power captured in the parallel filter is not the design goal so the whole "harvester" pitch is just hype since it implies something that only seems desirable but isn't.

 

[marting]

This, from their narrative, is pretty odd:

Harvesters work in parallel, each removing 8 to 10 watts of line noise each day.

Watts are a unit of power, not energy so the sentence is nonsense. Not even sure what it could mean. Perhaps Joules/day? Seems pretty small. No idea what he could be thinking there.

 

[osmosis]

As someone who knows "a thing or two" about electronics, I watched this video with great amusement. My baloney/scam detector was immediately triggered, and it was immediately obvious to me I was seeing an attempted techno-swindle. I could almost literally smell the BS.

Let us grant the benefit of the doubt, and concede to the makers of this device that the circuit performs as claimed. It probably does, and the point is moot anyways. The makers of the device want us to get hung up arguing this technical detail, because it's an argument they feel they can win, and it keeps the focus of attention away from the real issue, which is what they desperately want.

The real issue is that this device just isn't that great, functionally speaking. It probably delivers inferior results than less expensive devices, and the manufacturer's suggestion that the mark -- oops, I meant customer -- buy several of these devices (at the outrageous price of $99 each) and run them in parallel is mind-boggling.

I'll reiterate what has already been noted by others, that the only thing this device has going for it is the blinky gimmick. A simple resistor would both cost less and dissipate more energy (thus removing the need to buy these things en masse). But it wouldn't look as cool, and you'd only need one.

 

[ExtremeSkeptic]

How's about you learn to even read a scope and understand what the settings are before you criticize someone else? I've discussed what is shown, and the comments made by psaudio. The two together are complete and utter bollocks.

The photos of that system you are so proud of show a complete and utter lack of understanding of all things electronic. How about the one where you have audio cables mixed in with PC power supply cables? That must be really good for your audio, especially since you take such pains to "shield" all of your equipment, going so far as to disassemble things and stuffing them full of conductive paper.

Like I said in the other thread, I like to input EMI into the transport because it sounds better. But the rest of the system needs to be shielded to get the highest resolution. Tweaking the transport didn't increase the performance, it just changed the flavor.

BTW, the cables on the picture are not audio cables, they are IDE and SATA cables for the harddrives. The rest are DC cables from the PSU.

 

[ExtremeSkeptic]

The real issue is that this device just isn't that great, functionally speaking. It probably delivers inferior results than less expensive devices, and the manufacturer's suggestion that the mark -- oops, I meant customer -- buy several of these devices (at the outrageous price of $99 each) and run them in parallel is mind-boggling.

More of them isn't necessarily better. How many you need depends on your system and what sound you like to hear. In my system I'm using 3 Harvesters right now. I added a 4th but it made it sound worse, the sound got too heavy. When I removed the 4th one the synergy was back.

 

[ExtremeSkeptic]

BTW. Who wants to see a double blind test video?

 

[osmosis]

More of them isn't necessarily better. How many you need depends on your system and what sound you like to hear. In my system I'm using 3 Harvesters right now. I added a 4th but it made it sound worse

So in other words you only spent $300 on what could have been attained for less than $50 if you had bought a product that admits what it is and is priced accordingly.

Good for you.

 

[ExtremeSkeptic]

So in other words you only spent $300 on what could have been attained for less than $50 if you had bought a product that admits what it is and is priced accordingly.

Good for you.

Everything in audio is overpriced because they manufacture them in low quantities. The Noise Harvester made the biggest difference I had ever heard (10 million on my 1-10 scale), and it wasn't for the better, I had to compensate for the heaviness elsewhere in my system (stiffer rubber bands for isolation foot). When I removed it from the wall I could hear the noise build up the next 2 minutes I listened. It was pretty cool. First the music sounded heavy and then it slowly got thinner and thinner and then the edginess appeared.

 

[TjW]

That's the problem with engineers, if they have done something their whole life they want to make themselves believe they know everything about everything while others know nothing. If they would realize the truth that they don't know what they are doing then they would get sad. 10 years is nothing, 10000 years is nothing... Numbers don't matter, only the truth does. But for some reason skeptics like to show a number like it means something. It's like a badge that they brag about to everyone out on the streets.

Ego man: BAM look at my impressive badge, I got it from looking at a scope for 10 years straight! I still don't know what I'm looking at but the badge is impressive isn't it?
Truth boy: Who are you?
Ego man: I am someone who knows everything about everything, that's why I'm showing you my badge, impressed?
Truth boy: No.
Ego man: You need to be.
Truth boy: But...
Ego man: No buts! Now bow down to my badge! 10 years you see this!!?

I notice that you don't have any refutation for the facts presented:

* The trace on the scope was not a trace of the signal under discussion.
* The LED cannot dissipate the claimed 8 watts.
* Trying to characterize the trace as being taken with x10 probes makes the discrepancy worse.

Attacking the person making the argument and not the facts of the argument is an ad hominem fallacy.
Do you have anything to say about the facts, rather than your opinion of the person presenting the facts?

 

[ExtremeSkeptic]

I notice that you don't have any refutation for the facts presented:

* The trace on the scope was not a trace of the signal under discussion.
* The LED cannot dissipate the claimed 8 watts.
* Trying to characterize the trace as being taken with x10 probes makes the discrepancy worse.

Attacking the person making the argument and not the facts of the argument is an ad hominem fallacy.
Do you have anything to say about the facts, rather than your opinion of the person presenting the facts?

If you think you know something, you don't. I don't know anything, not even why I'm posting this message. I don't believe in anything, not even what I'm writing right now.

People think of everything too simple, especially skeptics who like to live in their dream world where everything makes sense. Most posters here only know the simple classical physics, they don't know anything more advanced than what they have learned in the brainwashing school.
Basics is always flawed knowledge because you start from the bottom. I start from the top.
Audio is much more complex than simple physics. But engineers ignore it because they want to brag about their knowledge to others. Having incomplete knowledge that is 100% correct doesn't make it correct. They live in their little box with little scope and calculator... Then they refuse to listen for themselves because they have already made up their minds.

 

[mroek]

Audio is much more complex than simple physics.

Which is the basic flawed assumption that almost all audioholics believes in. It is still flawed. Audio is physisc, on all accounts.

However, this assumtion also makes a lot of people very rich, since it allows them to sell completely non-functional devices for ridiculous amounts of money to gullible audioholics.

 

[MortFurd]

If you think you know something, you don't. I don't know anything, not even why I'm posting this message. I don't believe in anything, not even what I'm writing right now.

People think of everything too simple, especially skeptics who like to live in their dream world where everything makes sense. Most posters here only know the simple classical physics, they don't know anything more advanced than what they have learned in the brainwashing school.
Basics is always flawed knowledge because you start from the bottom. I start from the top.
Audio is much more complex than simple physics. But engineers ignore it because they want to brag about their knowledge to others. Having incomplete knowledge that is 100% correct doesn't make it correct. They live in their little box with little scope and calculator... Then they refuse to listen for themselves because they have already made up their minds.

Get a clue, fella. The guys with the scopes and the calculators design and build all manner of equipment that performs to specifications that relegate audio to the kiddy toy box. How about that PC you are using?

Your lack of knowledge lets you assume that anything you want to believe so really is so. It ain't so, by a big fat margin.

I am so glad that people like you don't take an interest in cars. You'd "tweak" the damned thing until it became a safety hazard and some one got killed.

As is, you only run the risk of putting yourself in the poor house from buying expensive equipment, or shorting out your rig and burning it up.

 

[Schneibster]

/me watches the audiophools argue with real engineers who do it for a living and get paid to do so.

Pathetic.

 

[speco2007]

As someone who knows "a thing or two" about electronics, I watched this video with great amusement. My baloney/scam detector was immediately triggered, and it was immediately obvious to me I was seeing an attempted techno-swindle. I could almost literally smell the BS.

Let us grant the benefit of the doubt, and concede to the makers of this device that the circuit performs as claimed. It probably does, and the point is moot anyways. The makers of the device want us to get hung up arguing this technical detail, because it's an argument they feel they can win, and it keeps the focus of attention away from the real issue, which is what they desperately want.

The real issue is that this device just isn't that great, functionally speaking. It probably delivers inferior results than less expensive devices, and the manufacturer's suggestion that the mark -- oops, I meant customer -- buy several of these devices (at the outrageous price of $99 each) and run them in parallel is mind-boggling.

I'll reiterate what has already been noted by others, that the only thing this device has going for it is the blinky gimmick. A simple resistor would both cost less and dissipate more energy (thus removing the need to buy these things en masse). But it wouldn't look as cool, and you'd only need one.

I wish you would post this in the PSAudio forum. We need to put an end to the idiot crap these guys sell.

 

[speco2007]

AHHH here we go fellas the great Paul of PSA has spoken. Keep in mind he never claims to be an engineer he was a DJ.


Quote Paul"The only reason I am even going to spend a few minutes on this post is because I screwed up and made some incorrect statement which got MortFurd riled up unecessarily.

I apologize Mortfurd.

I went a bit too fast and didn't check all the facts.

I talked with Laszlo and here's the deal:

When we made the scope measurements you see in the pictures, they were made with a little scope box we built. The scope box is a high pass filter which is flat from 2kHz and above, but cuts out 60Hz. So that's why you didn't see the 60Hz.

Also, the scope box (or probe) is 1:1 and the scope was set to a 10:1 reduction.

This should clear up your confusion.

Again, my apologies.

The dimmer we use is indeed a triac based cheap light dimmer. My explanation is correct and stands. He's saying the same thing.
All he needs do is put the line on the scope (helps to use our scope box) and he can easily verify the range where it generates the greatest harmonics.

All the noise energy of the Harvester does not get dissipated through the LED. As I described the circuit, this should be obvious. Some of the noise goes through the series capacitor transformer junction, some goes through the transformer. Not sure I ever meant anything different to be understood.

Thanks. "

End Quote