|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
172.56.17.23
In Reply to: RE: System Degaussing with a Difference posted by Dryginger2 on October 14, 2014 at 21:48:18
It makes a huge difference. I've degaussed TT platters, TT platter weights all w good results. Strange that even supposedly non magnetic items (aluminum and acrylic) benefit.
My only issue is that degaussing in this manner does not have longevity. Incidentally you can pass degausser over cables without disconnecting, just turn off gear.
The Purist Audio disc supposedly has 125 degaussing programs.That one has been my long time favorite. I do use my hand held Geneva 2800 gauss. degausser, though.
Follow Ups:
Interesting. How often do you have to deguass?
BTW, your use of the attribute huge can mean pretty much anything in "high-end" audio.
For example, lost in the desert, a glass of water might be interpreted as a huge pool of water to the one dying of thirst. Yet, for another living in the state of 20,000 lakes, a glass of water might be just that, a very small body of water.
For a reference on your interpretation of huge, how would you classify your experiences with the sonic differences between redbook CD and high-rez formatted recordings?
Nil, small, medium, large, or huge?
Music is highly subjective. So are individual sensitivities.
Even your asked for comparison would be severely flawed IMHO
Did you ever notice first generation dual layer SACD's had the SACD layer.in correct polarity and the redbook layer.inverted? IMHO if polarity awareness.and time alignment of speakers are secondary importance my assessment will mean Nothing to you, no offense intended. If you can not hear polarity and timing most tweaks are negligible
IMHO polarity and timing comes first and foremost. Degaussing comes a bit after.
Of course YMMV and FWIW.
I appreciate all of your intellect.Now how about answering my very simple question?
I realize your brain may be that of a race horse at the starting gate, but please try not to read too much into it.
Edits: 10/17/14
LOL!!
OK to take your requested comparison, when corrected for proper polarity, degaussing is just as large a difference between high res and redbook, and in many instances the difference may be greater, particularly in dynamic range. Hi res will, of course, give better ambient information and tonal textures, however corrected for polarity, many might consider the differences trivial.
So much for any potential for a reality reference check.
How much more specific could you reasonably expect than 400%? A precise quantification sufficient for most adults. YEMV.
That may be your definition of huge. But my definition of huge may span galaxies.
That's why I asked a simple question seeking a simple answer so I could try to get a simple reference point from where he might be coming from.
Since he obviously has experience with degaussing and I don't, yet, the chances are good we both have experience with redbook and hi-rez.
But it seems everybody wants to be a rocket scientistic in these forums as if that's some kind of proof of the level of playback system performance they've been able to assemble.
Stehno,
Not a fan of licensed track downloads of SACD layers known as 'Hi-res' since their quality is so variable and provide a poor basis for consistent sound quality comparison with Redbook CDs. 'Hi-res' was contrived to sell more DACs. Sound quality comparisons between recordings on different occasions of the same work by the same artists should lead to the SACD DSD layer always being better but differences of venue and engineers can tip the balance decisively back to Redbook.
Sometimes we just have to read up on a subject like EMI (ElectroMagnetic Interference) on the Internet, bite the bullet and invest in a de-magnetizer like the Walker Talisman ($215 delivered). Demagnetizing the detached cable ends, speaker terminals and AC wall outlets produces a sound improvement at least as good as the optimum difference between a Hi-Res download and Redbook or using the $400 Shunyata Venom Digital Power Cord on a Mac Mini to my ears.
EMI creates low-level distortion that hides musical detail (much as component corruption shared over ground creates distortion and hides musical detail). Only when the distortion, against which the music is being defined, has been substantially reduced do we become aware that another level of subtle musical detail has emerged from the recording to be heard against the new quieter background. So addressing distortion whether from EMI or shared ground component/ domestic corruption introduces us to a more intimate and enjoyable level of detail with a sound/ tone quality that is closer to live performance and noticeably less fatiguing to the listening ear/ brain. No rocket science required, just faith and persistence! (I started with a solid, digital wall of 'muzak' and complete ignorance of all things audiophile four years ago.)
DG
DG, thanks for your response and your take on some of the licensed track downloads of some websites, their questionable quality, etc. and I agree with that.
This is the first I've heard that "hi-rez" may have been contrived to sell more dacs. Nothing in "high-end" audio surprises me. Curious if you have any sources on that.
Also agree with the other variables between redbook recordings and hi-rez, except that it seems most tend to lean toward a preference of the hi-rez rather than redbook and then call the differences "huge".
So based on your other notes about degaussing, I get the impression that you consider the sonic benefits of degaussing as positive but small to mild.
That's all I was looking for from the other guy.
And yes, I'm familar with numerous distortions, their sources, and often times their remedies. The most severe of which we never hear audibly, but raise the noise floor so high that only a small percentage of all the music info processed remains above the raised noise floor while the vast majority of the music info remains inaudible below it.
Thanks,
Stehno,The improvement to my ears is LARGE. Having watched what happens to the credibility of postings written in the first flood of enthusiasm, my objective is to under-promise and over-deliver. However I suspect that you will never make the investment in a demagnetizer unless the scale of the improvement is apparent. I used mine for ripping 10,000 CDs and then considered it largely a waste of time until this tweak transformed its value for my audio system. If it were a small improvement, I would sell the Walker Talisman as I cannot be bothered with regular efforts to effect small improvements. No, this is large and more than worthy of our time.
As you say, distortion is clandestine and its effect often recognized only by its partial elimination unlike vibration whose overt presence is manifested by hollowness in and haze over the musical notes. Do get a Walker Talisman - you'll be pleased with the large positive effect on your sound when using it as described in this tweak.
DG
Edits: 10/19/14
You can use virtually any degausser.
Geneva company made a hand held unit claimed to have 2800 gauss power, the strongest hand held machine they claimed. They no longer make it but you can find a occasional unit over on Ebay. Original price was $75 for reference.
I use the Geneva.
Mostly, though, on ebay i find Radio Shack tape erasers. They are relatively cheap and work well. average price about $35.
FWiW and YMMV
Uncle Stu,
True. I owned and sold both The $35 Geneva and the far more professional $79 Han-D-Mag by R.B. Annis before purchasing the $210 Walker Talisman. In my opinion for most applications and users the Walker Talisman is a great deal more user-friendly and effective because the distance at which it should be held from the object is far less critical.
Dry Ginger
Stehno,
To my ears the improvement from degaussing the metal connectors of cables and the AC wall outlets is at least 400% greater than the benefit from demagnetizing speaker/ interconnect cables. It's in no way subtle and at first it's difficult to accept the scale of improvement heard by the ears because we have been conditioned by the cable-demagnetizing results to have low expectations. The gain is on a par with the outcome from such tweaks as the multi-layered enclosure of an internal amplifier Toroidal transformer or amplifiers/ music servers connected to uncorrupted grounds for the first time. It took me by surprise and those who try it will likely be rather pleasantly surprised too...
DG
is one of the most difficult things to assess over the internet, indeed.
I use a lot of demos to illustrate my tweaks, but honestly, some people hear them immediately and are impressed, and there are others which even after repeated demos consider any change barely audible and not really worth the time or expenditure.
Let's face it, the human element and all its variations, makes an assessment very difficult to compare. I thought i made it clear that an SACD compared to red book was almost negligible for me (tried to do it diplomatically and to explain why it was minimal. For me Polarity was a bigger difference. But no biggie, that's the human condition.
UncleStu,
Thank you for your feedback. I was distinguishing between degaussing the connectors of cables from degaussing the cables themselves which I have found to be relatively unrewarding. In my experience it's difficult to fully degauss the metal of connectors while they are still plugged into components, TVs, AC wall outlets, or speakers and that is why it's more effective to disconnect and expose them first.
Much indebted to you for focusing attention on EMI via speaker screws.
DG
No problem, sharing observations is the quickest way to get wider feedback and perhaps a greater pool of knowledge, the whole point of y sharing tweaks, whihc financially give me little or no gain.
The degaussing of the ends is also interesting in the light of the current movement to low mass ends ( Eichmann and NexGen WBT). I am of the opin ion that the lower mass ends absorb less of the EMF fields generated by the cables.
Also a local electronics genius (my opinion, of course) has pointed out tht the circular nature of the negative RCA ends lends itself to a higher inductance in trapping the Emf field.
I have done some experimentation in simply cutting a small slot in the negative RCA terminal and it seems to increase the upper frequencies (only used some cheap ends as I didn't know what to expect). Unfortunately many RCA ends use the negative barrel as a retainer for the center pin, and that sort of put a dampener on the idea.
You are right in that degaussing the ends while connected would be more difficult as the degaussing field will be affected by the chassis and such. It would be difficult to focus the degaussing field.
Thanks
Stu
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: