New technology for high end audio!

bikezappa

BlueFox wrote: »

Yes, I have left it on with no music, and I have not noticied anything. Neither have the cats. They are impervious to it. Yet, a few years ago, right before an earthquake, my first cat came running in from outside, jumped up on a chair, and started meowing like crazy at me. I said "What's your problem?" Then boom, it hit.

That proves it then.

bikezappa

hearingimpared wrote: »

Here we go!~

Never let a little data get in the way of one's beliefs.

BlueFox

madmax wrote: »

Can you explain what the enhancement sounds like?

Louder, wider, bigger, clearer, with a bit of shrillness when it was close to the speakers. It just didn't seem right compared to being in the back.

concealer404

bikezappa wrote: »

That proves it then.

Proves what? Lost me there.

bikezappa

concealer404 wrote: »

Proves what? Lost me there.

Just a joke.

concealer404

bikezappa wrote: »

Just a joke.

Oh ok, gotcha.

WilliamM2

Case and point, if the theory behind such a product cannot be explained by current science. It does not mean the said theory is false or totally voodoo.

If it can't be explained by current science, then how did they develop the product in the first place? The Schumann Resonance has been known since 1952, I would sure hope current science can explain it.

Whether it works or not, I'm trying to figure out how something so small can produce a 7.83hz tone.

wudai_e

Sometimes how science explains it is so different from how folks like you and I understand it isn't it?

So the trick is to ignore the ignorant

hearingimpared

bikezappa wrote: »

Never let a little data get in the way of one's beliefs.

Never let a lack of data interfere with science marching on . . . even if it can't be proven yet. I think Einstein was thinking along those lines.

bikezappa

hearingimpared wrote: »

Never let a lack of data interfere with science marching on . . . even if it can't be proven yet. I think Einstein was thinking along those lines.

I was just suggesting that a blind test be done to determine if this thing had an effect sonically. Wife plugs and unplugs thing while honey listens.

I hope there is no harm in suggesting that.

hearingimpared

bikezappa wrote: »

I was just suggesting that a blind test be done to determine if this thing had an effect sonically. Wife plugs and unplugs thing while honey listens.

I hope there is no harm in suggesting that.

Nope you are right. I ask my wife to do the same when I get a new piece of gear or have done a tweak. That, however, isn't a double blind test.

bikezappa

single blind correct.

jm1

WilliamM2 wrote: »

If it can't be explained by current science, then how did they develop the product in the first place? The Schumann Resonance has been known since 1952, I would sure hope current science can explain it.

Whether it works or not, I'm trying to figure out how something so small can produce a 7.83hz tone.

This is not an infrasonic device creating an acoustic wave. It’s generating an electromagnetic wave of this frequency.

7.83Hz acoustic wave has a wavelength of about 143 feet
7.83Hz electromagnetic wave has a wavelength of about 23,700 miles


Maybe ShineAce can elaborate on what he was talking about in a prior post.

BlueFox

Well, I am single at this point, but at first I added an extension cord so I could bring it over to my chair. I then would close my eyes and unplug and plug it in to check for differences. That is a 'blind' test.

As I said in a previous post, it appears more apparent on better recorded CDs than on other CDs.

Being an engineer I usually need hard data for anything. However, after using this thing for a month I have no problem with not understanding how it works. It's my money, my time, my ears, and, at least for this, I can live with not understanding the reason.

MANSKITO

ShinAce wrote: »

The science is simple. Sound waves are periodic. You see some noise, you expect it to loop and you cancel out the predicted loop. It's not perfect, but works so well there's no reason to hate. It has nothing to do with sound versus light. Even with noise cancelling headphones, you use a mic to pickup the noise and cancel it. You can't guarantee the noise reaches the mic before your eyes, so you can't pre-emptively interfere with it. Since you're so good in physics, go find out what the definition of frequency is for a single pulse. Fourier did a lot of work on this.

If Manskito was right, which he isn't, then negative feedback in an amplifier wouldn't work.

p.s. Information can NEVER travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

Ahh well as to "NEVER" thats not entirely true for example on the edge of our expanding universe it is theorized that it or might be traveling faster then light.

Also worm wholes (and other instances at the limit of out understanding) offer a Possibilities of FLT. So to say NEVER is not really wise but to say never in your life time (which for all practical reasons is sufficient) is very wise and I find it hard to believe that any one would disagree with that.

My point was that the reason that it is PRACTICAL to do with sound waves is because they travel at comparatively slow speeds compared to that which electronics operate at. I did not mean that was the ONLY reason.

Its not perfect never said it was. (for more reasons then just some sound waves might enter your ear from another vector then the one the mic is located on.) But the ability to measure sound before it reaches your ears and produce in effect "anti sound" to the incoming sound helps tremendously with active noise cancelling. That combined with a few other tricks makes active noise cancelling much easier to accomplish with sound waves then it is with electromagnetic radiation.

Also even if this device is 100% at Schumann Resonance cancellation . What about the dynamic and more importantly unpredictable back ground noise of say cell phones, micro waves, Wi-Fi networks, power lines, radio stations etc...
Thats all there and almost impossible to actively cancel.

Also another point/question that occurred to me was that this device is in the same room as the electronics that you are trying to protect, wouldn't this hinder the ability of this device to protect your electronics?

On a side note I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing I would just like to get a better understanding of this device (also the universe around me) and I m sure others would too. You seem to know your stuff.

doctorcilantro

what happens if someone's tonearm's vertical resonance is at 7hz, which is quite plausible.

doctorcilantro

Has anyone recorded their listening room with music off? then recorded their room with this device on?

Sounds like it is a dither machine for human ears. Do they say what amplitude the are pushing out 7hz at? Obviously you can't hear it but I'm curious...-80db -70db?

DC

jm1

DC,

It produces an electromagnetic wave, not an acoustic wave. Big difference between the two.

hearingimpared

doctorcilantro wrote: »

what happens if someone's tonearm's vertical resonance is at 7hz, which is quite plausible.

I've seen mine resonate at 7hz before adjusting, very scary sight.

doctorcilantro

Similar device?

blackbody

madmax

Its hard to tell.

Cpyder

I feel that if someone is trying to sell me a $600 device with no proof of it actually working, they should try to keep their science straight. For example:

"This ultra-low tone (7.83Hz) is a naturally occurring frequency and the RR-77 is just the thing to breathe new life into your system."

" Although the RR-77 generates an ELF, the Schumann Resonance is not an audio signal like a subwoofer might generate so the RR-77 need not be very large or very heavy"

First it says it generates a "tone" (which is never a word used to describe waves in the electromagnetic spectrum, but rather sound waves) and then goes on to say it is not generating an audio signal, but rather a electromagnetic signal. I understand that the device is generating a EM wave, but I'd really prefer if someone was trying to take a large sum of my money, they use proper science and clear explanations.

Tony M

7.83Hz acoustic wave has a wavelength of about 143 feet
7.83Hz electromagnetic wave has a wavelength of about 23,700 miles

The above was quoted from a post just a few ago. I love stats.:D

So....This device might help a turntables tone arm on its second trip around the world?

doctorcilantro

I'm guessing that's what threw me when I brought up the tonearm resonance; I didn't realize it was an EM wave.

I'll bet switching to battery power for major components would be a more reliable upgrade than this device although that's not cheap either really.

DC

Cpyder wrote: »

I feel that if someone is trying to sell me a $600 device with no proof of it actually working, they should try to keep their science straight. For example:

"This ultra-low tone (7.83Hz) is a naturally occurring frequency and the RR-77 is just the thing to breathe new life into your system."

" Although the RR-77 generates an ELF, the Schumann Resonance is not an audio signal like a subwoofer might generate so the RR-77 need not be very large or very heavy"

First it says it generates a "tone" (which is never a word used to describe waves in the electromagnetic spectrum, but rather sound waves) and then goes on to say it is not generating an audio signal, but rather a electromagnetic signal. I understand that the device is generating a EM wave, but I'd really prefer if someone was trying to take a large sum of my money, they use proper science and clear explanations.