Schumann Resonator
Someone on VPI's forum did some measurements: http://www.vpiforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18703&start=20#p69034 Doesn't look as if they were impressed with the results. |
gbanderhoos, +1, my friend! Such things should be obvious, but apparently not. I have perhaps five reasons why such devices are ridiculous for system building, but I only mentioned one of them. The infusion of noise into the room was another. Kudos for linking to the site so that it can be seen. There is so much desperation to achieve something significant in terms of improving a rig on the cheap that gimmicks will always sell. Further, it is an interesting phenomenon that certain equipment receives a pass in terms of introduced noise. I have built systems that have inherent noise levels above absolute silence, but I'm not inclined to introduce a product that purposely adds noise. |
1- it is cheap 2 it is an experiment not a market consumers products in a conditioning article in an audio review about a miraculous electronic new costly design to bought at all cost... 3 this experiment could improve many average system for peanuts 4 i propose an interesting complementary experiment for those not intellectually rigid and curious, with 2 different additions on top of the S.G. 5 it is not the first and best way to improve all audio system FOR SURE....A common place fact is not something we can use to bash the experiment.... 6 but ONE of the best way to improve most audio system is not upgrading EITHER and may cost nothing at all and i prove it for myself: Acoustic active controls 7 those who bash a 20 bucks experimnent for no reason against all those who claim to like the effect of S.G. in their system and room are mostly consumers and sellers of costly hyped audio products or member of the "Skeptic sun day scientists boy club» 8 i am affilated with none of these groups 9 ANY electronic component in a system introduce noise of his own ’ a S.G. or a new amplifier, it is an engineering fact called a TRADE-OFF... we must deal with this trade-off our own way and in our own system to decide for or against....I did....By the way there is no system immune to the house noise floor ...But we can decrease it...I did.... 10 read point number(9) 2 times to digest this nut of science ... |
To be frank i dont understand a so much STRONG "irrational" reaction and bashing of a so fun and cheap experiment, an a rewarding one for many in the past, with even possible new discoveries if someone dare to experiment? For sure some people can register no effect in their system and room and for them because of the many factors involving the different noise floor levels coming from mechanical, electrical and acoustical sources... And the discriminative hearing history of each listener being another one... There exist only one answer to the rejection a priori : prejudices coming not from science but from "scientism" and from patent "sellers" habits here or owners of costly gear, who dont like the idea that audiophile experience may not be so costly at all... Am i forgetting another reason? The truth is simple tough, audiophile experience righfully implemented MAY cost peanuts.... Sorry for those who dont like the truth. Acoustic is Queen in Sound and Music, not electronic design...It is only his useful mate for some kind of reproduction via Fourier method.... 😊 But learn by yourself that this Queen is hermaphrodite and does not need this mate at all cost.... Dont conflate the 2 .....The cost would be very high in all meaning of the words.... And dont believe only in science, like some in religion, learn it at your own level: experiment yourself the truth..... «Man is greater than science because he dont conflate knowledge with understanding and understanding with truth»-Anonymus Smith « Some "Science" is often only a fucking habit»-Groucho Marx «Is it not only a recipe?» -Chico Marx |
