Why Do Schumann Resonators Work?

@mahgister.

Bought 8 of them as well as tuning sticks, rocks, gems, crystals and none of that voodoo did a thing. Period.
So how is that for an open mind?
Do make disparaging remarks when you have no clue!
You are easy to classify to it is called a MARK by CON MEN!
Or in the words of PT Barnum "A sucker is born every minuet"
How about Thomas Tusser " A fool and his money are soon parted"

Think you have that tinfoil hat on a we might tight eh?

So my word for you is actually two words Gullible Sucker!

i understand your anger...

And i admit to owe you an apology...

I apologize sincerely for my post...

Indeed you had tried these S.G. and were not experimenting the same thing than me and some others...

I understand that because it is not the first modification we must do anyway in our audio system and room like i had repeateadly said and it is not always audible effect on all acoustic settings or systems...

Then what is easy to verify in some circonstance is not always repeatable in OTHER circonstances...

It is the reason why in all my posts i promote ACOUSTIC treatment and controls FIRST over any other "tweaks" save perhaps vibrations controls and electrical noise floor control....

Then concluding that a cheap S.G. does not work after your experience is not by any means a final word, because it works for many others people... The main reason are linked to the different characteristic of different systems and their specific acoustic environment...

For me the effect of the S.G. grid is easy to verify by disconnecting it gradually or completely but is at the same time a perceptible effect tributary also  of other acoustics settings in our room...

I am sorry for my erroneous post about you where i mistakenly confuse you with a closed mind dogmatist .... You are not one... But clearly a free investigative spirit....

My best to you....

@mahgister No worries have a good evening sir.

🙂🙃🙂

@mahgister No worries have a good evening sir.

🙂🙃🙂

You are a gentleman thanks for your kindness...

Tweak versus method

Buying a ready made "tweak" and seating after that to listen for the audible effect is what most people in the "tweaking" business do, sellers and consumers alike....

It is not my way.... I dont buy costly ready made "tweak" why ?

Not mainly because they are costly, some are not, but because any "tweak" by definition is only a SECONDARY Add-on to the system causing it to improve or not...

"Tweaks" dont solve the THREE PRIMARY problems...

If we speak about an existing audio system, the PRIMARY problems are related to the primary working dimensions of any audio system: electrical noise floor control and decreasing method and devices, mechanical vibrations controls method and devices, and especially acoustical passive treatment and mechanical active control devices and method...


Then a "tweak" is not an experimental set of listenings experiments where we create specific homemade or low cost device solutions...

If we dont adress these 3 working dimensions controls by METHOD and spare our time with only money and buy some "tweak" we dont SOLVE the 3 primary problems, especially the acoustical complex one...


I never recommend any tweak here, especially costly Schuman generator...

I recommend 10 us.  bucks chineese one to play with in an experiment...

But ionizers and S.G. CANNOT and NEVER will replace a string of listening experiments in acoustic and psycho-acoustic for example...You cvannot solve room problem with a Schuman Generator....

I "sell" creativity at no cost or peanutrs cost not "tweaks".... If someone buy them it is not my fault...

I wrote at lenght about my listening experiments about acoustic and vibrations controls for example...NONE of my devices cost more than few cents....The more costly are "secondary" devices like ionizers at 20 bucks and S.G. at 10 bucks...

Alleged Snake oiler sellers are always related to snake oiler consumers...

I am neither of one...






Now a concrete exemple of a specific "tweak" and the difference with a method...

For speakers vibration control i read about a "tweak" which consist to place rubber pucks under the speakers... this is a "tweak" that can improve or not the S.Q. But there will be also a possible trade-off with different  specfic type of speakers... All puck dont work the exact same results under all type of speakers...

My method here first begins with coupling/decoupling sandwiches of 5 different materials under my speakers...I created this sandwich myself at no cost...After that i bought cheap chinese springs boxes and i created a new way to use them with a dyssimetrical compressive force under 2 sets of 4 with each speaker  and a heavy fine tuned damping load of concrete for the compressive force all that by listening experiments...

The results were astounding....A method could sove optimally at no cost a problem.... A "tweak" cannot...A "tweak" can be a good add-on, or a detrimental one with a trade-off  which we are complety unconscious about, because we had not plan any complementary experiments to improve it or discount it...We act without method....

I dont need pucks under my speaker...Not because "tweak" dont work at all , they work, but a more systematical approach focusing  on the three PRIMARY problems is more fertile work than just a " plaster" sometimes on an open wound... And using a puck or buying a sophisticated puck system  sold like a "tweak" is not the solution for me....


Then if someone TRY a "tweak" like a cheap Schuman generator, it is a playful experiments i suggested here not a solution for the three main primary problems in audio at all....

No tweak replace method and no tweak replace acoustic control.... None....

No need to apologize mahgister, especially not when so rudely insulted by jerryg123 who is after all only jumping to conclusions.

I tried three times to start a discussion about how it is that we learn to hear things we are not accustomed to hearing. A few really are interested but it seems a lot more are offended to think they are not already the last word in listening skills and so they made like jerryg123 here throwing insults instead of trying to maybe learn something new.

Most everyone is able to hear volume. If the claim is one is louder than another pretty much everyone is able to judge. Frequency response is really just volume, but now it gets a little bit harder because we are trying to judge volume not just overall but at different frequencies. This takes a bit of practice but eventually a lot of us are able to do it.

From here on out though it gets a lot harder- and fast. Lots of things resonate and this alters frequency response but in a more subtle harder to discern kind of way. All instruments and voices have their own resonances, as do rooms and microphones, etc, and this all makes it a real challenge to differentiate and discern what is doing what. Awful lot of audiophiles never do get this one down. It is shocking how much of this resonant coloration there is, but maybe not so shocking in light of how few audiophiles are even aware it is going on. 

We haven't even gotten to how we learn to listen for these things, still just putting labels on a few of them.

One of these someone was asking about recently is grain. Grain is a little harder to describe. Nothing changes in terms of tone or frequency response, the sound just gets a little bit smoother and more natural when there is less grain. Most all components have a lot more grain when new or cold than after burning in or warming up. So one way to learn to hear grain is learn to hear the difference between your amp (DAC, phono stage, etc) when cold vs some hours later. 

Part of what I hear with SG is a reduction in grain. 

Another one is hash or grunge or noise floor, whatever you want to call it. This one is probably some combination of RFI and EMI, but who knows? Doesn't matter. What it is, that is a different subject. One thing audiophiles are good at, switching subjects. Real serious obstacle to learning. Ditch it. Back to the subject: how this, whatever we call it, sounds.

Here the simplest test is to turn off some circuit breakers. Do this and you will hear a noticeable reduction in hash or grunge, a blacker background, with more air around images. 

Part of what I hear with SG is a reduction in grunge, a bit blacker background, and a bit more palpable imaging. 

I would not say the improvement is huge. To me it is obvious, but then I am an exceptionally discerning listener. Sorry if my being good offends those who are not, but this is in no way a zero sum game. Nothing will make me happier than you read and learn and become a better listener than me. Because I want a better system. If you can hear things I can't I want to know about it, so I can maybe learn and become better myself.

Now that we have us some labels, to put SG in perspective, I would say the 9 I have makes an improvement roughly about as good as the improvement in my system from when it is first turned on to how much better it is an hour or so later. That is all. For me that is more than enough to justify the $90 they cost me. 

If for you it is not, oh well. 

Between Chuxpona and Chuctoberfest we have had personal direct experience with a number of audiophiles. Some of them frankly admit to not being able to hear things that are obvious to others. This goes both ways. I am supposedly deaf to gross harmonic defects. Whatever. Would like to know what that is all about. Which notice, is a completely different response than calling the other guy names.