PS Audio Noise Harvester

[ExtremeSkeptic]

What makes you think it will do that?

Because I can hear it, why else?

If you think so, then why do you think AC outlets should be screened?

AC outlets need to be shielded so the noise doesn't enter the AC wiring which distorts the sine waves.

ES, an antenna works both ways. It transmits just as well as it receives. IF your phone plug can receive EMI signals and lead them away in the wiring, then it also means that any EMI that is borne by the wires will be emitted by it.

That is why the last few feet of the wiring matters even when there are hundreds of feet of crappy wiring in the house. The last few feet radiate noise to the component it is plugged into.
The cable for Harvesters is a feet from my audio rack, noise used to come out from it. But now with Statement power cable the problem is solved, it has 4 shields.
When I used Statement to plug in my audio system I got worse sound, but when I use it to plug in the Noise Harvesters I get better sound!!

 

[ExtremeSkeptic]

By the way, the metal cases of the equipment shield many magnitudes more then that ERS paper that you are getting ripped off on.

Paul



It is like putting that paper on an US Army M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank to protect it.

People hear a difference when they place the ERS paper on top of the chassis. I tried 1 sheet and didn't hear a difference because I ignore it like a skeptic, but when I used 10+ sheets I heard huge differences! I couldn't deny there was a difference anymore! The more I wrapped my system the bigger the improvements got. The last sheet made a bigger difference than the first sheet. It's the same as with Valhalla cables. The first cable made a small difference, but the more Valhalla I added to my system the bigger the differences got. The last Valhalla gave the biggest improvement! Same with ERS Paper. If there is a hole somewhere in the system it will give huge improvements when covering that hole. That's why replacing the stock cable with Statement gave a huge difference.

I'm listening to my system again and it's one of the biggest improvements I have ever heard!!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Because I can hear it, why else?

No, no. This was about the phone plug. You have not experimented with the phone plug, so you have no idea how it affects what you hear. You just assumed a certain effect.

AC outlets need to be shielded so the noise doesn't enter the AC wiring which distorts the sine waves.

But then it also cannot come out of the wiring. When it radiates away then noise, it is not conducted.

That is why the last few feet of the wiring matters even when there are hundreds of feet of crappy wiring in the house. The last few feet radiate noise to the component it is plugged into.

No, it is conducted. I'm sorry ES, but this is engineering. I'm not discussing what you are hearing, but how waves probagate and get conducted is engineering. And I happen to be the engineer, not you.

The cable for Harvesters is a feet from my audio rack, noise used to come out from it. But now with Statement power cable the problem is solved, it has 4 shields.

When I used Statement to plug in my audio system I got worse sound, but when I use it to plug in the Noise Harvesters I get better sound!!

Perhaps, but you cannot make engineering conclusions from that. You hear what you hear, but you have no idea about engineering aspects.

Hans

 

[Paulhoff]

People hear a difference when they place the ERS paper on top of the chassis. I tried 1 sheet and didn't hear a difference because I ignore it like a skeptic, but when I used 10+ sheets I heard huge differences! I couldn't deny there was a difference anymore! The more I wrapped my system the bigger the improvements got. The last sheet made a bigger difference than the first sheet. It's the same as with Valhalla cables. The first cable made a small difference, but the more Valhalla I added to my system the bigger the differences got. The last Valhalla gave the biggest improvement! Same with ERS Paper. If there is a hole somewhere in the system it will give huge improvements when covering that hole. That's why replacing the stock cable with Statement gave a huge difference.

I'm listening to my system again and it's one of the biggest improvements I have ever heard!!

There is a million dollars just waiting for you and no BS that you don't need the money, put up or ...............

Paul

 

[Cuddles]

Those pictures are possibly the saddest thing I have ever seen. How could anyone buy all that nice, shiny stuff and then cover it in toilet paper? The whole point of all that expensive audio stuff is so you can point at it and say "Look at all my shiny expensive stuff", not "Look at my room covered in paper". Let's be honest, anyone listening to MP3s on headphones really can't pretend they're interested in how it sounds, it is all about the image. Toilet paper is not a good image.

 

[MortFurd]

Those pictures are possibly the saddest thing I have ever seen. How could anyone buy all that nice, shiny stuff and then cover it in toilet paper? The whole point of all that expensive audio stuff is so you can point at it and say "Look at all my shiny expensive stuff", not "Look at my room covered in paper". Let's be honest, anyone listening to MP3s on headphones really can't pretend they're interested in how it sounds, it is all about the image. Toilet paper is not a good image.

Expensive, high tech toilet paper. Sticky back US Letter sized sheets $29.95 each or 4 for $99.95. Non-sticky sheets $19.95 each or $69.95 for 4 sheets.

Used properly, it looks like it'd be a decent shielding material (if the specs are correct.) Plastered all over and around your equipment, it's a nifty way of saying "I fell for the advertisement - hook, line, and sinker."

 

[Paulhoff]

"I fell for the advertisement - hook, line, and sinker."

It is also saying that "I know nothing about electronics" and think that electrical engineers don't know anything, but somehow the TV, computer and satellites etc work. Also that that I can’t possibility fool myself, just because I know how I think and therefore I know how to lie to myself, I don’t.

Paul

 

[Psiload]

Expensive, high tech toilet paper. Sticky back US Letter sized sheets $29.95 each or 4 for $99.95. Non-sticky sheets $19.95 each or $69.95 for 4 sheets.

Used properly, it looks like it'd be a decent shielding material (if the specs are correct.) Plastered all over and around your equipment, it's a nifty way of saying "I fell for the advertisement - hook, line, and sinker."

Seems to be the audiophile version of the tinfoil hat.

 

[MortFurd]

It is also saying that "I know nothing about electronics" and think that electrical engineers don't know anything, but somehow the TV, computer and satellites etc work. Also that that I can’t possibility fool myself, just because I know how I think and therefore I know how to lie to myself, I don’t.

Paul

You must have missed where ES was slamming the engineers for building the simple things like PCs. He's only interested in advanced physics, like in audio.
And this was classic, too.

 

[jon]

Those pictures are possibly the saddest thing I have ever seen. How could anyone buy all that nice, shiny stuff and then cover it in toilet paper? The whole point of all that expensive audio stuff is so you can point at it and say "Look at all my shiny expensive stuff", not "Look at my room covered in paper". Let's be honest, anyone listening to MP3s on headphones really can't pretend they're interested in how it sounds, it is all about the image. Toilet paper is not a good image.

Hey, I use an MP3 player to listen in the gym, and bought some good earphones to make it sound better. I find it hard to tell high bitrate MP3s from lossless files in a blind test at home, and no way I'd be able to do this in the gym - so why worry about an audible deterioration of sound I can't hear.

Admitedly, my earphones are small, not shiny, and don't include toilet paper. Still, I'd argue that good quality MP3s can sound pretty good; I'd guess (though couldn't back up with measurements) that any deterioration in sound caused by compression will be less than that caused by speakers, room interactions, etc in most settings.

 

[MortFurd]

Hey, I use an MP3 player to listen in the gym, and bought some good earphones to make it sound better. I find it hard to tell high bitrate MP3s from lossless files in a blind test at home, and no way I'd be able to do this in the gym - so why worry about an audible deterioration of sound I can't hear.

Admitedly, my earphones are small, not shiny, and don't include toilet paper. Still, I'd argue that good quality MP3s can sound pretty good; I'd guess (though couldn't back up with measurements) that any deterioration in sound caused by compression will be less than that caused by speakers, room interactions, etc in most settings.

Truthfully, speakers and earphones are worse about losing things than mp3 compression. That's one of the places where the audiophiles make complete asses of themselves. The speakers do more to munge the sound than any other component, but they spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to improve the electronics - or eliminate miniscule losses in a cable run of ten feet.

The thing about mp3, though, isn't just the lost audio. The other thing about mp3 is the artefacts (side effects of the compression) and "smearing." Mp3 is encoded in frames. A tone that is present anywhere within the time span of the frame is spread across the entire length of the frame.

You can make the effects more obvious by compressing your mp3s at lower bit rates. The effects are exagerated that way. The higher bit rates have the same type of effects, but of course no where near as extreme.

Not like it matters much to me. I mostly listen to CDs 'cause my car radio doesn't play mp3. The speakers on my PC suck major canal water, so anything I hear there is more likely a problem with them - or a nice, fat, 50Hz harmonic from the sound card.

The music is what counts. If the music sucks, it doesn't matter how good the sound system is - crystal clear crap is still crap.

Given a choice, I'd rather hear good music on a good system. I'll take good music on a bad system and be happy. Give me bad music, and I'm gonna turn the blipping thing off and go sing in the shower. Don't make me sing. You really DON'T want me to sing.

PS:
"Good" or "bad" music is in my purely subjective taste. Your mileage may vary.

 

[MortFurd]

For Jon:
Here's a comparison of aiff (CD audio) and 320kb/s mp3. There's also one of 192kb/s mp3.

Not major, drastic differences (except above 16kHz) but still what you'd think a loss of what the audiophiles call "detail and resolution."

 

[jon]

Truthfully, speakers and earphones are worse about losing things than mp3 compression. That's one of the places where the audiophiles make complete asses of themselves. The speakers do more to munge the sound than any other component, but they spend huge amounts of time and effort trying to improve the electronics - or eliminate miniscule losses in a cable run of ten feet.

The thing about mp3, though, isn't just the lost audio. The other thing about mp3 is the artefacts (side effects of the compression) and "smearing." Mp3 is encoded in frames. A tone that is present anywhere within the time span of the frame is spread across the entire length of the frame.

You can make the effects more obvious by compressing your mp3s at lower bit rates. The effects are exagerated that way. The higher bit rates have the same type of effects, but of course no where near as extreme.

Not like it matters much to me. I mostly listen to CDs 'cause my car radio doesn't play mp3. The speakers on my PC suck major canal water, so anything I hear there is more likely a problem with them - or a nice, fat, 50Hz harmonic from the sound card.

The music is what counts. If the music sucks, it doesn't matter how good the sound system is - crystal clear crap is still crap.

Given a choice, I rather hear good music on a good system. I'll take good music on a bad system and be happy. Give me bad music, and I'm gonna turn the blipping thing off and go sing in the shower.

PS:
"Good" or "bad" music is in my purely subjective taste. Your mileage may vary.

Thanks - I can hear artefacts in the lousy 64k MP3s you can download off the web. I know it's probably possible for me to learn to hear artefacts in high-bitrate MP3s - not sure I'd want to, though.

And yeah, listening to MP3s through my nice earphones, or the decent speakers with my computer, still sounds better than CDs on my knackered ghettoblaster. Cabling is vital when listening to Celine Dion, though - the music is only listenable after you remove all cables from the speakers.

 

[peteweaver]

Its basically a filter. Hifi buffs have used high pass & low pass filters for years, this is nothing new.

Theres always been an argument as to whether there is any point...

 

[TonyL]

Expensive, high tech toilet paper. Sticky back US Letter sized sheets $29.95 each or 4 for $99.95. Non-sticky sheets $19.95 each or $69.95 for 4 sheets.

Check out those frequency ranges. Sure they claim it absorbs well in the 10 MHz to 17 GHz range, but what does it do in the frequency ranges we can actually hear? Or those at which sound will propagate through air? (A 1 MHz sound wave has an attenuation of about 162 dB/m through air)

 

[MortFurd]

Its basically a filter. Hifi buffs have used high pass & low pass filters for years, this is nothing new.

Theres always been an argument as to whether there is any point...

Welcome to the forum.

Not to be snotty, but do please try to read at least part of the discussion. The noise harvester plugsin in parallel to the power cord of your gear. It is claimed to remove 8 watts of noise power from your power line and convert all of it to light energy to permanently get rid of it.

As a filter, it is crap. As a converter of noise to light, it is crap. 8 Watts would burn out any standard LED in short order. The device does not have a high power LED (with the needed heat sink) to handle that amount of power.

As a noise detector, it is marginally functional. It is not marketed as a detector but a remover, a task at which it can only fail.

 

[Paulhoff]

You must have missed where ES was slamming the engineers for building the simple things like PCs. He's only interested in advanced physics, like in audio.
And this was classic, too.

No, I know this, and it is an old argument by people his understanding of things, they have never really read anything but what the people who are selling this crap say. It is the old “I want to believe their so more to things then already known and will buy into BS because I need this illusion”. If they would take the time, and that would lots of time to read what is know, they would be surprised by the volume of knowledge.

Posted by me somewhere earlier, but it still works with this guy:

There is one major problem with the CD. This is their downfall with the vinyl audiophiles "THERE IS NOTHING TO PLAY WITH". No balancing of the tonearm, tangency alignment, azimuth configuration, vertical tracking angle arrangement, antiskate force relationship, not to mention (but I will anyway) also worrying about the suspension, drive belt, platter bearings, levelness of the turntable, and heaven help us VIBRATIONS. Also no cleaning of the vinyl record, no getting up to turn it over and setting of the needle on the vinyl. There is NO HANDS ON INVOLVEMENT, by the audiophile, in the playing process. I think that is a great need by them, since it is a hobby (passion) and hobbies do have participation by the hobbyist.

My proposal is, we need to put ADJUSTMENT KNOBS on the front of the CD players. Labels like pulsation, thrust, plumb, etc could be used for the knobs. Also they should had digital readouts on them that over a few hours will drift so they will have to adjust them again and again. Now the knobs will DO NOTHING, there is no need for this. Some audiophiles can hear things for other woo-woos products that do none of the things claimed by the sellers, so why not for the knobs. As you know, many audiophiles now buy things that do nothing, (and the list is almost endless) so they will feel right at home fiddling with useless knobs.

Maybe for a time, this will make our lost audiophiles happy, but only for a time, more woo-woo ideas will come out to play on their irrational minds.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

As a filter, it is crap. As a converter of noise to light, it is crap. 8 Watts would burn out any standard LED in short order. The device does not have a high power LED (with the needed heat sink) to handle that amount of power.

A very good point.........

Paul

 

[MortFurd]

Check out those frequency ranges. Sure they claim it absorbs well in the 10 MHz to 17 GHz range, but what does it do in the frequency ranges we can actually hear? Or those at which sound will propagate through air? (A 1 MHz sound wave has an attenuation of about 162 dB/m through air)

They aren't talking sound, they're talking RF. As an RF shielding material, the stuff looks fairly decent (if the specs are correct.)

RF interference can be a problem. Haven't you ever heard noises on your stereo or TV when you used a cell phone right close to them?

Under the right circumstances, RF can get into your equipment and cause no end of fun. Like the evening I screwed up whilst putting together a microphone pre-amp and managed to make an AM radio receiver out of it.

Properly designed and built equipment in good repair shouldn't require additional shielding in a home environment. A truly well built piece of equipment will even pretty much ignore a cell phone.

Shielding goes both ways, too. Computer monitors used to be very sensitive to RF. A cellphone could play hell with the picture, or even cause the monitor to blank the screen. This was back in the early 1990s. Ever since they've started building low emission monitors, they've become more resistant. When was the last time your (CRT) monitor flickering when your cell phone rang?

 

[Buckaroo]

Also no cleaning of the vinyl record, no getting up to turn it over and setting of the needle on the vinyl. There is NO HANDS ON INVOLVEMENT, by the audiophile, in the playing process. I think that is a great need by them, since it is a hobby (passion) and hobbies do have participation by the hobbyist.

I must admit there is something to this, even for those of who are rational "audiophiles." (I hesitate to use the term. No woo gadgets for me -- it's all about speaker placement and reasonably-priced, quality engineering) I've often commented to my friends that there used to be a certain "ritual" quality to listening to music, before it was so portable and convenient -- pulling the album out of the sleeve, wiping it with a dust remover, setting it on the turntable, placing the needle in the grooves, and then settling down with the jacket and liner notes, because you couldn't go anywhere. Then, of course, paying attention and flipping the record. Listening to music was a deeper experience for many of us back in the day. Once a listening session started, there was a sort of commitment to the experience that doesn't exist with CD's and MP3's, where you can just press a button and skip to whatever track you want, and can take it wherever you go. It seems to me that it sorta trivializes the experience.

As much as anything, I suspect this accounts for much of the audiophile's hostility to superior (i.e., working) technology.