• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

PS Audio Noise Harvester

This statement has me baffled.

First impressions Statement for Harvesters and magic position of JuiceBar: More solid bass. More transparency and speed. Longer attack and decay. Greater dynamics. Higher resolution.
Click to expand...
First off I don't believe someone who listens to headphones knows what good bass really sounds like. While I can deal with terms like transparency and resolution this idea of lengthening the attack and the decay seems bizzarre.

So audio engineer types. Wouldn't increasing attack and decay essentially be changing the overall frequency of the music. Aren't these timing issues and changing them would actually change the playback timing? Isn't an amplifier's and speaker's ability to properly reproduce attack and decay really specced by their transient response and damping ability? Something that's probably a non-issue anymore in good amplifiers and is also pretty much gone in better speakers. This stuff is well understood. Right?

It seems to me that someone claiming a longer attack and decay has no idea what they are talking about.
 
Last edited:
ExtremeSkeptic said:
I'm listening to my system again and it's one of the biggest improvements I have ever heard!!:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

I excuse myself for not reading the entire thread, however, this is the first time I encounter a "extremeskeptic" that its ZERO skeptic.

What audiophiles believe are improvements its their own shift in focusing their attentional system. Not differences in the air.

If the differences were on the air, a DBT would be no problem.
 
MortFurd said:
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?
Click to expand...

Sure, but you're talking about specific identifiable interference. (I used to have a gerry-rigged tv/stereo setup that picked up CBs from passing truckers) But the people reviewing this seem to be making claims beyond this. For example, I'm skeptical that wrapping this around your power cord will make much difference, and I doubt that putting this on the wall plate of your power socket will make any real difference. Although I will admit that I forgot about the possibility of incidental down-conversion of modulations on higher frequency RF carriers to baseband.
However, I think we both agree that
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.
Click to expand...
Additionally, when the shielding is making a difference, it should be easy to see on a scope. I didn't see any measurements on the reviews, just accolades about how this stuff improved various "properties" of the sound.
 
MortFurd said:
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."
Click to expand...
It is a three-ply non-woven tissue material whith about 5% short carbon fibres in the central ply. Since carbon fibre is a fairly lossy conductor, I expect it could cause some minor attenuation to RF in the 1- 10 gigaherz range. At lower frequencies, the short fibres are so much shorter than the wavelenght that they hardly matter, and at higher frequecies, the distance between them is too high. At any frequency, the amount of conductive material is so small that it is unlikely to have much effect.

Certainly, placing a sheet (or any amount of sheets) on top of a metal cabinet and expect some effect is ridiculous.

Of course it is overprized, the production costs being negligible, but any merchandize has the prize the market is willing to pay for it.

Hans
 
TonyL said:
Sure, but you're talking about specific identifiable interference. (I used to have a gerry-rigged tv/stereo setup that picked up CBs from passing truckers) But the people reviewing this seem to be making claims beyond this. For example, I'm skeptical that wrapping this around your power cord will make much difference, and I doubt that putting this on the wall plate of your power socket will make any real difference. Although I will admit that I forgot about the possibility of incidental down-conversion of modulations on higher frequency RF carriers to baseband.
However, I think we both agree that

Additionally, when the shielding is making a difference, it should be easy to see on a scope. I didn't see any measurements on the reviews, just accolades about how this stuff improved various "properties" of the sound.
Click to expand...
I'm not claiming that wallpapering your equipment with this stuff will do you any good, either. If the paper attenuates RF as well as they claim, then it would make a good shielding material in situations where shielding is appropriate.

If a change to your equipment has an audible effect on the audio, then it will be measureable with the appropriate test gear.
 
jimlintott said:
This statement has me baffled.

First off I don't believe someone who listens to headphones knows what good bass really sounds like. While I can deal with terms like transparency and resolution this idea of lengthening the attack and the decay seems bizzarre.

So audio engineer types. Wouldn't increasing attack and decay essentially be changing the overall frequency of the music. Aren't these timing issues and changing them would actually change the playback timing? Isn't an amplifier's and speaker's ability to properly reproduce attack and decay really specced by their transient response and damping ability? Something that's probably a non-issue anymore in good amplifiers and is also pretty much gone in better speakers. This stuff is well understood. Right?

It seems to me that someone claiming a longer attack and decay has no idea what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
Attack and decay? I don't even know what they mean by that, in the context of equipment. A room has attack and decay parmeters, it is an acoustic thing. The reproduction equipment should not play a role in it.

As for the audiophile contra engineer thing, I have seen the same in other belief systems. Our old Kumar was a prime example: He thinks that as long as science does not know everything, then anything is possible.

What they fail to realize is that there is negative knowledge and positive knowledge. If I say: "No external noise can change the frequency characteristics of an amplifier", I'm in the deep end. And obviously, I can't prove it, since you can't prove a negative. However, if I make statements about how EM signals are radiated and propagate, I'm on solid ground, provided I'm an expert in the area (which I happen to be).

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
It is a three-ply non-woven tissue material whith about 5% short carbon fibres in the central ply. Since carbon fibre is a fairly lossy conductor, I expect it could cause some minor attenuation to RF in the 1- 10 gigaherz range. At lower frequencies, the short fibres are so much shorter than the wavelenght that they hardly matter, and at higher frequecies, the distance between them is too high. At any frequency, the amount of conductive material is so small that it is unlikely to have much effect.

Certainly, placing a sheet (or any amount of sheets) on top of a metal cabinet and expect some effect is ridiculous.

Of course it is overprized, the production costs being negligible, but any merchandize has the prize the market is willing to pay for it.

Hans
Click to expand...
I doubt ERS is making the stuff themselves.

I find several sources of the basic material, like here. Nickel plated carbon fiber in rolls.

So, I think the material is probably a repackaging of a standard product from somewhere. Possibly the data given by ERS is correct - when the material is properly applied and in appropriate circumstances.

Laying (or taping) a sheet on top of your CD player is not appropriate use or installation of the material. If my CD player were generating enough RFI to cause a disturbance, I think I'd rather buy a new player. If there's enough RFI from elsewhere in the house to cause a disturbance in the playback or audio, I think shielding the player would be the least of my worries.
 
jimlintott said:
It seems to me that someone claiming a longer attack and decay has no idea what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
Attack and decay becomes longer if there is more low-level detail. All the quiet sounds are audible now, before the decay was cut off too early which made soundstage smaller. Now the decay of ambient sounds is longer which makes the soundstage HUGE.

Before I had to optimize the amount of Harvesters to match the decay. When I had too many Harvesters everything got too heavy and the decay sounded cut off. When I removed the Harvester everything got thinner which gave the illusion that the decay continued longer.

Now when I replaced the stock cable for Harvesters with a Statement I get longer decay than ever before and it also sounds heavier than ever before.
 
MRC_Hans said:
But then it also cannot come out of the wiring. When it radiates away then noise, it is not conducted.



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.
Click to expand...
That is what the Harvesters are there for, to remove the noise that is traveling inside the wiring. I use 2 power conditioners for my system. The first power conditioner doesn't work properly with noisy power, that's why I hear huge improvements when I have Harvesters plugged into the same outlet.

I have heard that Toroidal transformers benefit the most from clean power. The 3 components in my system that benefited the most had Toroids in them!
 
OK, a short review of the specs of the ERS stuff. http://www.partsconnexion.com/audiogon_pix/ERS_MAIN.htm

They claim 0.026 ohms per square (the yard is superfluous, any square will have the same resistance). If the picture of the textile is correct, this cannot be true. The value is very low for carbon fibre anyway, but the little bits of fibre mostly don't touch each other, so there is no conductivity across the sheet.

Now for the attenuation claims. They claim a number of relatively high attenuation values, from 48 to 66 dB. Now, such a claim makes no sense at all, unless the method of obtaining the figure is specified, which it is not. However, values in that bracket can generally only be obtained with fully conductive materials, and only be careful application.

In short, I suspect the data is fictuous.

Hans
 
If the NH is complete BS then the stuff they say about power is. They sell power cords with removeable ground pins. They think its safe, and in many case you may be,but can they say with 100% that soemones amp doesnt have a loose wire touching it? They say many of your household gear is 2 prong so it must be safe. Well again it shows that they have not a clue, thats called a polarized plug and the gear is wired differently than gear that requires the fround pin. Here is a quote from the power cord website at PSAudio.

Quote"Is it safe?
Generally yes. We recommend keeping the ground in place whenever possible. However, sometimes it's necessary to eliminate a ground loop by removing the ground pin. When you do this there's no difference between removing the ground pin and using a three prong to two prong adaptor like a 'cheater plug'.

The ground on a power cable is used to tie the metal chassis of your equipment to a safety ground. Many pieces of equipment use only a two prong plug with no ground and this is perfectly acceptable and safe for use in the home."
 
MortFurd said:
I doubt ERS is making the stuff themselves.

I find several sources of the basic material, like here. Nickel plated carbon fiber in rolls.

So, I think the material is probably a repackaging of a standard product from somewhere. Possibly the data given by ERS is correct - when the material is properly applied and in appropriate circumstances.

Laying (or taping) a sheet on top of your CD player is not appropriate use or installation of the material. If my CD player were generating enough RFI to cause a disturbance, I think I'd rather buy a new player. If there's enough RFI from elsewhere in the house to cause a disturbance in the playback or audio, I think shielding the player would be the least of my worries.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, I want to cover my whole room in those products. Wallpaper, mat, window glass, clothes... I will get this audiophile clothing:

ESDCoatGloves.gif
 
ExtremeSkeptic said:
That is what the Harvesters are there for, to remove the noise that is traveling inside the wiring.
Click to expand...

First of all, placing a load at the end of a transmission line does not reduce the amount of radiation from it. But that was not what we were talking about. You said:

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.
Click to expand...

And I told you it is not radiated, it is conducted.

Basically, the idea that the harvester removes noise from the wiring is a misunderstanding. Even if it absorbs some noise, that noise is conducted through the wiring to the harvester. The more you remove at the end of the wire, the more will be travelling through it.

Now, electrical noise is a very complex subject and difficult to understand, even for an engineer. You need to be a specialist. So, I'm not blaming you for not understanding it, but you need to stop making technical claims.

Hans
 
MortFurd said:
I doubt ERS is making the stuff themselves.

I find several sources of the basic material, like here. Nickel plated carbon fiber in rolls.

So, I think the material is probably a repackaging of a standard product from somewhere. Possibly the data given by ERS is correct - when the material is properly applied and in appropriate circumstances.
Click to expand...

In fact, it is obviously NOT correct. If you read the specs at that site, they cite conductivities in the range 1-1000 ohm/square, a far cry from the 0,026 claimed by the ERS supplier. And this is for rather dense cloth. According to the photo on the ERS site, their stuff is so thin that the fibres don't even touch.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
OK, a short review of the specs of the ERS stuff. http://www.partsconnexion.com/audiogon_pix/ERS_MAIN.htm

They claim 0.026 ohms per square (the yard is superfluous, any square will have the same resistance). If the picture of the textile is correct, this cannot be true. The value is very low for carbon fibre anyway, but the little bits of fibre mostly don't touch each other, so there is no conductivity across the sheet.

Now for the attenuation claims. They claim a number of relatively high attenuation values, from 48 to 66 dB. Now, such a claim makes no sense at all, unless the method of obtaining the figure is specified, which it is not. However, values in that bracket can generally only be obtained with fully conductive materials, and only be careful application.

In short, I suspect the data is fictuous.

Hans
Click to expand...
The carbon fiber is nickel plated, Hans, which would give it a higher conductivity.

Not that I would want to claim that ERS isn't showing a data sheet for a better product, or that they didn't just make it up.

The type of material does exist and is used by knowledgeable people for its proper job.

ERS would appear to be purchasing it, slapping a layer of woo on it, and reselling it at high prices to audiophiles.
 
What do you think of this audiophile coat? It has 4% carbon fiber inside. http://www.esd.tv/Clothes.html

Should I get blue or white? If I get white I can take it with me when I get commited to mental institution. But with the white coat the stains are more visible, I would like blue for that reason. But I don't want to buy another coat when I get commited.
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
First of all, placing a load at the end of a transmission line does not reduce the amount of radiation from it. But that was not what we were talking about. You said:



And I told you it is not radiated, it is conducted.

Basically, the idea that the harvester removes noise from the wiring is a misunderstanding. Even if it absorbs some noise, that noise is conducted through the wiring to the harvester. The more you remove at the end of the wire, the more will be travelling through it.
Click to expand...
The more noise the Harvester removes the more noise is radiated out of the wire before reaching it. That's why I heard a difference when the wire had better shielding.

Most of the noise comes from the power conditioner plugged into the same AC outlet. You can see how much they blink in the video.
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
In fact, it is obviously NOT correct. If you read the specs at that site, they cite conductivities in the range 1-1000 ohm/square, a far cry from the 0,026 claimed by the ERS supplier. And this is for rather dense cloth. According to the photo on the ERS site, their stuff is so thin that the fibres don't even touch.

Hans
Click to expand...
I bow to your superior analysis of the material. I missed that discrepancy in conductivity.

Yowzas! 38 times the conductivity, assuming the 1ohm rating from that other manufacturer.

BS on the specs, then.
 
MortFurd said:
The carbon fiber is nickel plated, Hans, which would give it a higher conductivity.
Click to expand...
Depends. The conductivity of nickel is about ten times better than carbon (I couldn't find a number for carbon fibre, so I used the one for graphite), but I suspect the layer is very thin. Anyhow, I am simply using the conductivity that they specify (the producers of the source material), and it is evidently much higher than metal. For loos sheets, that is not necessarily a drawback because the only way a loose (non-grounded) sheet can provide any screening is by absorbtion, and that requires it to have some resistivity.

Not that I would want to claim that ERS isn't showing a data sheet for a better product, or that they didn't just make it up.
Click to expand...

They probably multiplied it by feet per second or something ;). We've seen that before.

The type of material does exist and is used by knowledgeable people for its proper job.

ERS would appear to be purchasing it, slapping a layer of woo on it, and reselling it at high prices to audiophiles.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I think it is mainly used for ESD protection, rather than EMI screening, but properly used, a 1-1000 ohm/square material could provide some EMI screening.

However, screening is a science. If you don't know what you are doing, you can easily do more harm than good.

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom