PS Audio Noise Harvester

[MortFurd]

I posted a reply to Mr. McGowan on the PSAudio site.
Reformatted for easier reading:

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.

Plausible, though not supported by the video or the text on your web site.

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.

Yes it does clear up the confusion, though I wasn't the one confused. I told you your comments on the probe were inconsistent, and you've now corrected them.

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.

A triac based light dimmer creates a buzz, as demonstrated in your video. That buzz is composed of harmonics of 60Hz. They don't start at 8kHz. 8kHz is far up the spectrum from the primary frequency, and there will be very little energy available there - witness the relatively slow blinking of the harvester despite being plugged in right where your speaker was buzzing to beat the band.

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.

Direct conflict with your web site text and your video. In both of those places, you claim the noise is converted to light and so removed from the power line.

Why didn't you just plug a noise harvester into the power outlet while you had the your "power sleuth" connected? That would have been a really convincing demonstration of your harvester - if it really worked. Instead of a simple, clear cut demonstration, you choose to go to a simulated demonstration that doesn't include any audio. Smells like con to me.

Either you understand the electronics you are using, in which case your product is a scam, or you don't understand the electronics and I would really be concerned about your safety when working around 120VAC.

 

[Ducky]

 

[osmosis]

I wish you would post this in the PSAudio forum.

OK then, I will. Although frankly, I fear the idiotic responses from the rabid audiophoolz.

We need to put an end to the idiot crap these guys sell.

Agreed.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The LED is not just an "added blinky" it is how the Harvester dissipates the stored noise energy. But, again, I can't fault MortFurd too hard on this because his assumption is based on wrong information which I admit, without further information he can only draw this conclusion (since he's not an engineer familiar with how one would read 120 volts).

(Just for the record, I am an engineer).

If the LED is the some way you dissipate energy, then you are lying in the specs. There is no way you can dissipate up to 8W that way. Those flashes represent about 0.01W/s each, at most.

The Harvester is real. Honestly, it's a very simple device! I tried to explain it before, let me try one more time.

Nobody doubts it is real. And yes, it is a very simple device.

There is a capacitor and the primary (input) of a transformer in series across the AC line. This forms a high pass filter that is tuned to about 8kHz.

The secondary of the transformer (the output)is send through a diode bridge to convert it to DC.

That would work to produce some DC, yes.

Then, using some tricky electronics, we take that DC and charge a capacitor with the energy that's harvested from the line (where the unit got its name).

Why would you need tricky electronics for that? That is what the bridge will automatically do. ...Unless the voltage is so low that you need to boost it to light up the LED:

When the capacitor is full, we dump the energy into the LED.

Thus, the only power used to blink the light is harvested from noise on the AC line that is above 8kHz. There are no batteries or tricks going on. It is a straightforward engineering design when the light blinks, it is powered by noise.

Yes, I gathered as much from the description. You have made a primitive noise indicator.

The laws of nature require us to understand that if we take energy from one source and expend it somewhere else, irregardless of how (heat, light, motion), then the energy is lower at the source because it has been moved to where it was directed, to make light, heat or motion.

Yes. So you have a power-line with an impedance of what? Some ten ohms at 8kHz+. So what does 0.01W/s do for that? Right. Nothing.

Speco, you're not dumb. If you were, I wouldn't even bother with you. Relax for one moment. I am not making this up. It really works this way. Show the description above of how this device works to someone you may know that actually understands circuitry or physics. They will tell you that what I wrote is 100% true.

I commend you for coming here and defending your device, but I suggest you stop being condescending to people.

The only question that is legitimate is how much of an effect does it have on line noise and your system? Now that is a fair and reasonable question.

Yes. We have a device that makes a tiny lamp blink occasionally on noise. How will that influence the noise level elsewhere on a low-impedance grid?

And, of course, we need to later discuss some of the technobabble you use on your site to sell your grossly overprized device.

Hans

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

This is nonsense. It is totally contradictory to the sales blurb which claims that the Harvester distinguishes itself from other noise filters by actually dissipating the energy. Now you are saying that it is just led somewhere else, like in all other filters (you don't dissipate energy in reactive components).

Now, even IF it was possible to do anything about the noise level by shunting it to a load, all you would need would be a capacitor and a resistor. All the other stuff is just for show.

Hans

 

[marting]

If the LED is the some way you dissipate energy, then you are lying in the specs. There is no way you can dissipate up to 8W that way. Those flashes represent about 0.01W/s each, at most.

Arghhh. Units!

 

[MortFurd]

That's what is so SAD about this. They could lower the cutoff to something reasonable (say, 300Hz,) and display the output on a meter calibrated to something useful (like noise peak voltage/line voltage and expressed as percent) then put the blinky on for when the noise is really bad. Then they'd have a (minimally) useful device that could be used to show how clean the powerline is, or be used to compare the powerline to the output of a conventional line filter device. Heck, sell 'em in pairs so the Hi-Fi nuts can have a full time comparative display of their power line and the conditioned voltage powering their stereo.

If they built and sold that for $99, I wouldn't be as concerned. Heck, just sell the original under an honest blurb (and name) at a reasonable price and I'd be OK with it. As a device to detect noise on the powerline it is (marginally) useful. A cute gimmick, at least. Claiming that is cleans up the power line noise is just pure BS, though - and that's what's got me riled.

 

[mroek]

@speco2007:

You really should create a video of your own test of the Harvester. Just use a regular cheap dimmer, and some device that picks up the noise (and makes it audible) from it. Then plug in the Harvester. I think I can predict the outcome, but nevertheless...

 

[TjW]

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.

So, that would be a "No."

 

[MortFurd]

So, that would be a "No."

That would be "ExtremeSkeptic: Ignorant and proud of it."

 

[speco2007]

@speco2007:

You really should create a video of your own test of the Harvester. Just use a regular cheap dimmer, and some device that picks up the noise (and makes it audible) from it. Then plug in the Harvester. I think I can predict the outcome, but nevertheless...

Turns out I did. Maybe I will post it back up. I am a pro audio engineer so I took the route of OK its supposed to improve the audio. I used a Meyer HD1 monitor and plugged my SMAART system into it using a DPA mic. took measurements with and without the NH in place and compare. Turns out it did nothing to improve the audio. PSA dissmissed the test right out, as they didnt understand this simple test.

 

[Ducky]

Turns out I did. Maybe I will post it back up. I am a pro audio engineer so I took the route of OK its supposed to improve the audio. I used a Meyer HD1 monitor and plugged my SMAART system into it using a DPA mic. took measurements with and without the NH in place and compare. Turns out it did nothing to improve the audio. PSA dissmissed the test right out, as they didnt understand this simple test.

Not surprising whatsoever. BTW welcome!

 

[ExtremeSkeptic]

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

Everything is physics, just not the simple physics people learn in school. If you think they teach it right, then there's a problem. Nobody knows the true physics, only the simple incomplete one. Once someone starts the engineering school it's all over for him, you can't get him back to reality. He keeps going deeper and deeper into his dream world with his simple physics books and he thinks it is the truth. When he sees something he doesn't understand he gets sad so he needs to direct his anger somewhere else than himself because he wants to be proud of himself. So he directs his anger to the people who made the device which he can't know how it works based on his simple physics books. Then the only way to make him feel better about himself is to call it a scam, it's the only way out.

 

[MortFurd]

Turns out I did. Maybe I will post it back up. I am a pro audio engineer so I took the route of OK its supposed to improve the audio. I used a Meyer HD1 monitor and plugged my SMAART system into it using a DPA mic. took measurements with and without the NH in place and compare. Turns out it did nothing to improve the audio. PSA dissmissed the test right out, as they didnt understand this simple test.

Figures. Audio woos never understand the tools they'd need to really understand their systems.

Frequency response? Group delay? Phase? What's all that stuff? Is it good to eat?

SMAART looks good. We used to use a rig that I had built from a STAC sampling card and programmed with LabView. It didn't provide a lot of the things SMAART does, but then we had a different focus. We needed impulse response plots from chirps, needle impulses, and cross FFT. We also needed absolute delay as well as group delay plots, and high resolution plots of time and frequency. The same rig could also be used to plot impedance charts of coils and capacitors. Most of our work was in the electronics rather than in speakers or microphones.

Ah, the good old days.

Now a days I use Baudline when I need audio stuff. That's reverted back to being a hobby, so LabView and similar tools (or SMAART) are just dreams. Baudline is free, and does a lot of the simpler stuff. Like blowing the noise harvester out of the water.

 

[ExtremeSkeptic]

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?

If you think that bulding a PC or other stuff is advanced physics I can't help you. Soldering components into PCB is made for little kids in school. What I'm talking about is much more advanced than you can ever imagine. You need to know more than Quantum physics for audio.

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.

Like I said, I don't believe in anything, not even after it has been proven. I use a neutral mind always, I don't have emotions.
I'm writing down my impressions but I still don't believe it. If I add all the impressions together and get a match, I still don't believe it. So far there hasn't been a tweak where I haven't heard inconsistent differences. I hear the same things every time. I still don't believe it, I never do. If I say Harvester makes a difference, maybe it does, I don't care if it doesn't. I have them plugged in because it makes music sound better.

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.

Car is a primitive form of transportation, it looks ridiculous.

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.

I already live in a poor house with holes in windows and stuff.

 

[ExtremeSkeptic]

So, that would be a "No."

Yes it's a no. Ever since someone said they listen for the improvements without any music playing I have ignored everything in this thread.

 

[MortFurd]

Everything is physics, just not the simple physics people learn in school. If you think they teach it right, then there's a problem. Nobody knows the true physics, only the simple incomplete one. Once someone starts the engineering school it's all over for him, you can't get him back to reality. He keeps going deeper and deeper into his dream world with his simple physics books and he thinks it is the truth. When he sees something he doesn't understand he gets sad so he needs to direct his anger somewhere else than himself because he wants to be proud of himself. So he directs his anger to the people who made the device which he can't know how it works based on his simple physics books. Then the only way to make him feel better about himself is to call it a scam, it's the only way out.

You never did explain how it is that our inadequate understanding of physics allows us to build the extremely complex device known as a PC.

I'll tell you what. You correctly explain how a class D amplifier works (in your own words and without referring to books or online sources) and we'll continue discussing your concepts of audio and electronics. I'll even accept a factual description of why you don't like class D amplifiers, provided you can discuss it in terms of the electronics rather than some nebulous flowery terms.

Heck, tell me why Class C amplifiers aren't good for audio and we can go on talking.

 

[ExtremeSkeptic]

That would be "ExtremeSkeptic: Ignorant and proud of it."

Yes, being ignorant and admitting it is still less ignorant than thinking you aren't ignorant.

 

[jimlintott]

I'm not an engineer of any kind and I have a question.

If noise in my AC line can put noise into my audio output shouldn't the effects of the noise be measurable at the output of my amplifier's power supply? If I scope the output of my amp's power supply and it shows a rock solid straight line with no noise then what does it matter that there is noise in the AC line?

I am always skeptical of claims of large improvements in sound. If something makes a large improvement it should be detectable on test equipment. I don't think relying on people's hearing is adequate.

I recently built a home theater room and actually tried to get noise into my system. I had the amp plugged into the same circuit that has two dimmers and I played with the dimmers and ran power tools and flourescent lighting and was unable to make any audible noise or clicks. The permanent setup has a dedicated circuit just for the amplifier.

 

[Schneibster]

Completely pathetic.