Dedicated power to audio system—how extreme to go?

[GdnrBob]

Yup, I was with Peter (ctsooner) that day at Audioconnection. If I recall, it was the VLR CT's, a Sub 3, with a Belles Aria Integrated, and streaming from an Aurender. When he played Yello's 'Oh Yeah', I got goosebumps.

To me, the CAD device seemed to make a 'blacker' background.

How or why it does this, I have no idea. Perhaps electromagnetism would be a place to start. 

B

[Holmz]

1 hour ago, GdnrBob said:

…

How or why it does this, I have no idea. Perhaps electromagnetism would be a place to start. 

B

 

Either electromagnetism or it’s psychological.
It would be nice to know:

1. If it works
2. and then… how well it works (i.e. how much it suppresses background noise.)
3. Then how it works.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Holmz

[BKDad]

Or, just read the papers, do the math, and run the experiments.  It's hardly witchcraft.

[arni]

When you run AC through a wire an electromagic field is created surrounding the wire. Any other wire running close by and in parallel will have a current induced in it by the field created by the first wire. To avoid this one twists the wires around each other so they are not in parallel or separates them so the field from one is very weak when it gets to the other or puts shielding around the wire to block the field. In data cables the pairs carrying a signal are twisted and the twist rate varies in the various pairs (when terminating certain pairs go to certain places on the patch panel according to their twist.). Then the whole cable (a bundle of pairs) is shielded. The shield is not grounded. But data cables carry very fast signals and the signal needs to be very, very clean. When it needs to be super clean with no loss and extremely high bandwidth fiber is used.  But for POTS much less demanding so less twist in the cables. Power distribution is slow (60 hz) but the amperage you can pull (15+ amps) will make a big field. So the inside of your amps use shielding.

 

I have a little gizmo called a toner.  It will inject a tone onto a wire (turn power off first). The the other part of the gizmo is essentially an antenna and amplifier. I can listen for the tone through the walls and find wires, identify circuits by which one is carrying the tone, etc. But the tone is supply by a small box running on a 9 volt battery. Finding a live wire without the tone by listening for the 60Hz doesn't work becuse the frequency is dropping off what one can hear.  One of my meters has a probe to tell, non-contact, if a wire is live. It amps the 60hz field up and changes the frequency so it is audible. But it has to be within 1/2" or so of the actual wire. Forget reaching through sheetrock for the most part.  I know there are detectors that will find a live wire in a wall (so you don't stuff a nail in it) but I don't have one.

 

Point is, tangly power wires are good. (my audio room isn't wired so I use extension cords from another room), do not run wires that  carry a lot of amps in parallel with wires carrying audio. Parallel runs of power and audio need a couple if inches of separation or shielding. Where they cross it should be at right angles. Tile spacers and cables ties will keep them that way.  Interconnects do not need to be fancy but tangly is good.

[Holmz]

6 hours ago, BKDad said:

Or, just read the papers, do the math, and run the experiments.  It's hardly witchcraft.

Both papers are well done.

But what is a CAD device? And how does it explain what Bob and Johnny where hearing?

[BKDad]

1 hour ago, Holmz said:

But what is a CAD device? And how does it explain what Bob and Johnny where hearing?

Essentially, these devices all are auxiliary "grounding" devices.  The idea is that by electrically binding the chassis of your audio gear together with lower impedance connections than already in place, the leakage currents that Bill Whitlock describes will tend to follow the proverbial path of least resistance rather than through the AC mains connections and your interconnect cables.  In turn  this generates a lower voltage potential between said chassis, reducing the noise.  

Although I never took one apart, my impression is that the boxes they sell to join all these extra bonding wires may have some ferrous or other material that is lossy in the RF spectrum.   Presumably , that tends to block RF currents from passing between chassis through these "grounding" wires. 

In engineering gobblety-gook, this is a practical application of mesh analysis.

Note that actual electrical "ground" really has nothing to do with this.  Whitlock talks about that, too...

[ctsooner]

22 hours ago, BKDad said:

I absolutely do not question whether these devices make a difference in the perceived sound.  And, I'm not using perceived in any sarcastic sense.

The big question is just why they do what they do.  If you step back and do a thorough analysis using existing Earth bound physics and subjects that are taught at the college freshman level for electrical engineers (or, at least, used to be), the answers can be found.  And, Mr. Vandersteen is very right (surprised?). 

Think about this just for a moment.  Just why do power cords matter?  Pretty much all power cords do a great job at passing the 60 Hz (or 50 Hz outside North America) power currents.  

So, what is it then?  The power cords must be part of a circuit that also passes other signals.  Bill Whitlock explains that in those two papers.

But, why would you want that to begin with?

Never questioned that at all. I love what ur sharing. Teaches me a lot and I know it’s teaching others etc. 

these two papers were the easiest for me I think. It’s basic stuff when I don’t need to worry about the math (I used to be great at math, but MS Fog has changed that lol). 
 

This is another good argument that a system all from the same manufacturer can be better as they are designed the same way (as long as they design it correctly in the first place. I bet what Garth did by breaking out the legs and twisting them etc, is why he makes this way.  Just a fun to know thing. 
 

I was told years ago by my dealer to never run parallel and to always keep power and audio signals at least 4” from each other. I’ve always tried this. The issue with the newer thicker cables and cords is that it much more difficult to run things. Maybe with the way they designed, it doesn’t matter as much. That’s a great question for Garth or Richard. Ha. 
 

 

[BKDad]

21 minutes ago, ctsooner said:

I was told years ago by my dealer to never run parallel and to always keep power and audio signals at least 4” from each other. I’ve always tried this. The issue with the newer thicker cables and cords is that it much more difficult to run things. Maybe with the way they designed, it doesn’t matter as much. That’s a great question for Garth or Richard. Ha. 

There's also an argument to be made for tightly putting all your cables together in one bundle.  The idea there is to minimize the loop area, which is what determines the amount of coupling to other loops carrying interfering signals.  That is apparently often done in sound systems in auditoriums where there's loads of lighting systems drawing large amounts of current.

I guess in some ways what you want is an integrated everything.  That reduces a lot of these problems.  Maybe put the actual raw DC supply in an external box so that the fields from the transformer (both the actual AC power mains stuff and the rectifier pulses) don't get into the audio circuits.  Even better might be to integrate all of that into the loudspeaker housing.  If your sources are all digitally based, connect the server via optical fibers to the integrated loudspeaker.  Then, of course, you'd have to contend with the low signal level electronics getting vibrated by the loudspeaking, as you might call it and the external magnetic fields from the loudspeaker drivers.

No free lunch anywhere.

[ctsooner]

As designers will all tell us, where do u want the compromise?  I like RICHARD’s philosophy and why I have Vandy. 

[GdnrBob]

The CAD device uses one of the inputs/outputs of the device being connected. So, I would imagine the grounding is part of the whole electronics inside the device, not just the chassis.

The reason I suggested electromagnetism is that, I feel, there are lots of small fields of magnetism that are produced in our equipment, cabling and power cords that we aren't considering,  This, I feel, is why cables, power cords and CAD devices produce the effects they do.

B

[Holmz]

2 hours ago, GdnrBob said:

…

The reason I suggested electromagnetism is that, I feel, there are lots of small fields of magnetism that are produced in our equipment, cabling and power cords that we aren't considering,  This, I feel, is why cables, power cords and CAD devices produce the effects they do.

B

 

Like a Boston song, “It’s more than a feeling.” 😎

 

But magnetic fields are also proportional to current, so fields created by power cords are predominantly 60 Hz, and harmonics thereof… and they are way larger than micro amperes of current in an interconnect.

And they are also proportional to the area between the conductors.
So twisted pair power cables produce lower field  intensity than two separated wires, and the twist means that the fluid is rotated around as we move down the wire. And hence it generally cancels out if the adjacent cable is not twisted the same way and same rate.

The Jenson fellow’s paper had some great trouble shooting steps.
And he also mentioned CATV transformers to block ground loops.

 

Maybe I am just lucky as I have not really had problems with grounds and hums.
Or maybe I just need better gear?

 

11 hours ago, BKDad said:

Essentially, these devices all are auxiliary "grounding" devices.  The idea is that by electrically binding the chassis of your audio gear together with lower impedance connections than already in place, the leakage currents that Bill Whitlock describes will tend to follow the proverbial path of least resistance rather than through the AC mains connections and your interconnect cables.  In turn  this generates a lower voltage potential between said chassis, reducing the noise.  

…

Note that actual electrical "ground" really has nothing to do with this.  Whitlock talks about that, too...

I think that was where Whitlock said that the only measurement that mattered was the shield’s gauge/impedance…

[Richard Vandersteen]

5 hours ago, GdnrBob said:

The CAD device uses one of the inputs/outputs of the device being connected. So, I would imagine the grounding is part of the whole electronics inside the device, not just the chassis.

The reason I suggested electromagnetism is that, I feel, there are lots of small fields of magnetism that are produced in our equipment, cabling and power cords that we aren't considering,  This, I feel, is why cables, power cords and CAD devices produce the effects they do.

B

I had a dealer try this on products I know handle the grounding internally correctly (not a lot of wires going everywhere and stacked parts) and included our amplifier.  I then asked him to compare the device on products I know are not as careful with ground as they should be.  Sure enough the device made very little difference on components with proper grounding technique but a noticeable difference on components with  less care with the grounding.  Basically I think they are trying to get the whole system to simulate "Star Grounding" especially with components with different ground potentials distributed throughout the component let alone the system.  Runing the entire system on one dedicated circuit also helps with this.  YMMV.  RV

[ctsooner]

11 hours ago, Richard Vandersteen said:

I had a dealer try this on products I know handle the grounding internally correctly (not a lot of wires going everywhere and stacked parts) and included our amplifier.  I then asked him to compare the device on products I know are not as careful with ground as they should be.  Sure enough the device made very little difference on components with proper grounding technique but a noticeable difference on components with  less care with the grounding.  Basically I think they are trying to get the whole system to simulate "Star Grounding" especially with components with different ground potentials distributed throughout the component let alone the system.  Runing the entire system on one dedicated circuit also helps with this.  YMMV.  RV

This seems to make a ton of sense. Not sure if it’s exactly what Richard shared, but is very close I think.  Even power cords make less of a difference with my  Vandy amp as well as my Brinkmann. I know both companies ground properly in the component. I need to get the CAD device in the house to play and see if it does much with these.  

[GdnrBob]

6 hours ago, ctsooner said:

 Even power cords make less of a difference with my  Vandy amp as well as my Brinkmann.

I have also heard the same said with Ayre equipment.

 

But, my 'Spidey Sense' tells me there are far more subtle effects from electromagnetic interactions that we are currently oblivious to.

That Mr. V. has found the effects of such grounding devices reduced by 'properly' grounded devices seems to suggest that it has a definite affect.

Bob

[BKDad]

1 hour ago, GdnrBob said:

I have also heard the same said with Ayre equipment.

You do know that Ayre equipment essentially has no “ground” at all, right?

Ayre has gone to the trouble of using ‘double insulation” so that a safety ground is not required in the power connection.  This is the same approach used in toasters, electric irons, and a bunch of other consumer products.  In many ways, it’s safer than just connecting the ground terminal of the AC cord to the chassis.  But, there are defined requirements that have to be met in order to get safety agency approval.

This is NOT the same as just using a cheater plug!!

From an audio perspective, not letting various leakage currents run around through the AC system safety ground has lots of benefits.  Too many equipment designers in all industries fall into the trap of thinking that ground is the universal sink for all that is bad.  Bologna.  Whitlock talks about this.

In the US it’s especially bad since we don’t have symmetrical power systems for the 120 VAC side,

https://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=525553&highlight=ground+charles+hansen

The fancy Audioquest power conditioners use an inductor in series with the ground connections of each filtered outlet.  Those are the large toroidal chokes you can see in interior photos.  They don’t have much impedance at 60 Hz, but they certainly do at higher frequencies.  The idea is to reduce inter-chassis leakage currents from flowing in the AC power mains connections.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8988168B2/en

BTW, you can measure these leakage currents with the right current probe and an oscilloscope, or, better, a spectrum analyzer.  These days, that’s hardly an expensive proposition.

[Holmz]

29 minutes ago, BKDad said:

You do know that Ayre equipment essentially has no “ground” at all, right?

…

🥱

So they call it “Ayre” because it hovers above no ground?

[ctsooner]

BK, this thread has been invaluable.  It's ironic Bob brought up Ayre as that's all I owned (integrated and DAC/Streamer) until I got Quatro's and started my upgrade path that I knew I was going to do a few years ago.  I found that the Hurricane as well as AJ Conte's top cord made a bit of a difference.  The Hurricane, which I used exclusively on the QX5/20 seemed to lower the noise floor even more which on Ayre gear isn't easy to do. Ayre builds their high freq conditioner into that unit as well as my AX5/20 unit I was using.  I know Ayre uses their Cardas cords and cables when auditioning their gear.  I didn't know about the way they do their grounds, but Rutan was using Ayre equipment with the CAD device.  It made a HUGE positive difference for a device that's 2k or so.  I wish I could hear it with Richards gear though.  That would say a lot. 

It's not black magic, but too many folks started their own wire company, but didn't know the first thing about electricity and how it works in audio.  This is a thread that we couldn't have on Audiogon as folks would come on and tell us why we are all full of it, or why one company is better than another (we all have preferences as they all sound different). That's why I love this forum. 

[BKDad]

The irony, for lack of a better word, is that many of the effects audio enthusiasts often hear can easily be mapped to what instrumentation and other engineers routinely encounter.  The physics behind it has been written about extensively by very credible people who worked at places like Bell Labs.  

A challenge I have repeatedly observed is that a lot of engineers will admit that these effects do exist and are real, but, “Nobody can hear that!”  Tough to argue with such dogma.  And it truly is dogma.

Of course, the public discourse with various publications, online experts, and marketing explanations only makes the situation worse.  Plus, in general, a lot of people just plain like to argue.

(Full disclosure:  I am not an expert on anything myself!  Except, maybe, knowing where our dogs like to be rubbed.)

Also, there’s so many varieties of what people like to hear in music reproduction that technically crappy characteristics often get praised. An example of that is 10 dB of bass boost at the listening position that so many people enjoy - including some reviewers.  If a person likes that, great!  Just don’t be telling us that it’s really technically accurate.

And, change is not always better.  Plugging your ears with your thumbs is definitely a change.  Better?  For some music and some audio systems it definitely is.  In general, that’s not what I personally want.

[GdnrBob]

23 hours ago, BKDad said:

You do know that Ayre equipment essentially has no “ground” at all, right?

As Johnny Carson used to say: 'I did not know that.'

Though I will stand by my belief that despite technical design, there are other miniscule effects that electronic equipment contribute to sound quality that haven't been discovered/thought to be relevant. And, given that we are using an electromagnetic device and we are organic beings, there are probably lots of things we have yet to recognize.

B

[BKDad]

This is mostly directed at Pete…

Since you’re interested in reading about the electronics used in audio gear, there’s two books I’d recommend having a look at.  They talk about basics plus go into more details at a very accessible level.  If you step back, you can see how the details apply to your audio system and the components therein.

One of my college physics advisors once suggested that every physics student buy the Feynman Lectures on Physics series of books.  His contention was that if you read and understood those books, you’d be 99% of the way there.  I think that is also the case for these two books about electronics.

https://artofelectronics.net

https://x.artofelectronics.net
 

BTW…. If you have a lot of time on your hands, you can read the Feynman books online for free now.

[ctsooner]

Thanks BK. I’ll check into those. The issue I have is reading retention. I am able to do shorts stories, articles etc. I’ll see what I can do. My daughter shares a lot of physics with me as that was one of her majors. She sings and loves music. She noticed that the small system I shared with her for college sounded so much better when she streamed from tidal.  When folks who have no clue about how we listen or how we describe things hear the same things you know something is happening , good or bad. 
 

fascinating stuff as we have been talking like this about electrical and cords since Matthew Polk came out with his speaker cable. I heard a positive difference using it when I bought my first POLK Monitor 10’s in 77 when they came out. Hearing that cable made me realize how important it was. This is for sharing. Off to check out he links 

[Holmz]

1 hour ago, BKDad said:

…
BTW…. If you have a lot of time on your hands, you can read the Feynman books online for free now.

URL?

 

When I was in Uni/college, one of my favourite professors would have a Thursday bar hour…, and would give classic problems to solve on a bar napkin.

I was successful once on the rate of the clock on a high altitude balloon, which Feynman or maybe it was Fermi who solved on a plane.

It has to do with the air adding mass (or reducing it) on a clock wheel to change it mass and therefore its resonant frequency. 

 

The professor gave us a point for attending, 3 more points for solving the problem, and extra points if we left with company of either persuasion.
(I am hanging my head in shame that I never got more than the 4 points.)

… but I did come close 😎

[BKDad]

1 hour ago, Holmz said:

URL?

https://www.google.com