Take a look at this 'white paper' ..
http://computeraudiodesign.com/CAD_Ground_Control.pdf
Thoughts ..,
http://computeraudiodesign.com/CAD_Ground_Control.pdf
Thoughts ..,
Take a look at this 'white paper' ..
http://computeraudiodesign.com/CAD_Ground_Control.pdf
Thoughts ..,
The money side of this always opens the door to skepticism. If you're a DIY man like myself, then you can experiment with close to zero cost materials to verify that doing something here matters, has an audible impact - but if you're a consumer you either have to add extra bits like this, to see if it makes a difference, or buy components that are engineered in such a way that they don't have a problem. Either approach costs money, end of story."circuits are all sensitive to HF noise. In our experience, reducing unnecessary high frequency noise in the system gives clearly perceptible sonic benefits"
Of course this ignores the fact in our wider experience all humans are sensitive to cognitive noise about sonic benefits does it not? With merely redesign and listen methodology we would hardly expect anything except uniquely perceived benefits regardless of any technical measures.
The description of a sandwich of materials used in aerospace and eletronics industries allows ground noise between 700 khz and 10 ghz to be turned into heat so the paper says. So we have moved beyond Scandanavian farmer kitty litter to actual space composite sandwiches. Too bad it costs nearly $2k. Would like to see it cut open for what is inside.
It is pretty shameful stuff coming from an electrical engineer:
"It is our belief that this HF noise affects the performance of the electrical devices used in your audio components, degrading overall sound quality. In particular, we believe that devices such as operational amplifiers, transistors and DAC chips used in modern audio 5 circuits are all sensitive to HF noise. In our experience, reducing unnecessary high frequency noise in the system gives clearly perceptible sonic benefits."
Belief? How about some measurements especially since he references an analog devices app note on how to do that?
Huhhh? Over on diyAudio, which has a bunch of engineers as hard nosed as any, there has been quite a bit of discussion on then sensitivity of some opamps to RF, particularly regarding the well considered LM4562 family, to the point that some won't use this chip - there's an issue with the input stage being prone to rectifying RF noise, and so special care needs to be taken with the implementation. There are not generic issues, just that some parts are susceptible to various noise factors, and that will require good design to prevent issues.It is pretty shameful stuff coming from an electrical engineer:
"It is our belief that this HF noise affects the performance of the electrical devices used in your audio components, degrading overall sound quality. In particular, we believe that devices such as operational amplifiers, transistors and DAC chips used in modern audio 5 circuits are all sensitive to HF noise. In our experience, reducing unnecessary high frequency noise in the system gives clearly perceptible sonic benefits."
Belief? How about some measurements especially since he references an analog devices app note on how to do that?
Is there a problem with the concept that current follows the path of least resistance to complete a circuit?"One of the laws of electronics is that electrical current (like water) will always take the easiest path down into the earth."
Which one of those DIY engineers then suggested connecting the chassis with a single wire to some sandwich of metal in plastic box to deal with such RF issues?Huhhh? Over on diyAudio, which has a bunch of engineers as hard nosed as any, there has been quite a bit of discussion on then sensitivity of some opamps to RF, particularly regarding the well considered LM4562 family, to the point that some won't use this chip - there's an issue with the input stage being prone to rectifying RF noise, and so special care needs to be taken with the implementation. There are not generic issues, just that some parts are susceptible to various noise factors, and that will require good design to prevent issues.
Is there a problem with the concept that current follows the path of least resistance to complete a circuit?
"One of the laws of electronics is that electrical current (like water) will always take the easiest path down into the earth."
I'd like to hear about some more "laws of electronics".
Where are they listed?
Does electrical current evaporate? Like water?
Does it condense? Boil? Freeze? Flow downhill? Puddle? Rain? Make 6 pointed electro-snowflakes?
I'm beginning to feel I don't have a clue anymore.
Is there a problem with the concept that current follows the path of least resistance to complete a circuit?
Yes, but the quantity of current that flows through the higher resistance is far less - the old exercise of resistors in parallel: what percentage of the current flows through the resistor that is 10 x, 100 x the value of the reference resistor. If there are multiple paths to complete a circuit the current through each will always be proportionate to the ratios of the resistances, or better said, the impedances - so, give a voltage difference a superbly low impedance path, amongst many far less well endowed, and guess where the vast bulk of the current flows?It will also take multiple paths of differing resistance simultaneously if available.
So, YES, I do have a problem with "the concept that current follows the path of least resistance to complete a circuit".
guess where the vast bulk of the current flows?