The BudP DIY Speaker Ground Tweak

TJHUB · « **Reply #260 on:** 22 Dec 2010, 05:31 pm »

I wanted to post another update to my experience with my overly simple DIY ground controls.

I recently swapped interconnects and made a couple of mods to my music source. In doing so, I removed the ground controls from both my speakers and my amps (mono-blocks). The sound certainly changed from what I had before the changes. I did like what I was hearing, but I need more time to know if I prefer the new sound over the old. However, in doing some critical listening, I noticed that I did not have the clarity I had before making the changes and removing the ground controls. I listened for a couple of hours this morning and decided to put the ground controls back in.

One track I really noticed a difference with the DIY ground controls is Patricia Barber's "Ode To Billy Joe". The finger snaps sound completely different with the ground enhancers in place. The finger snaps are so clear they actually sound different. While listening this morning, I could tell they were different without the ground controls in place. Sort of smeared and lacking the echo sound a bit. But as soon as I replaced the ground controls on both the speakers and amps, the super clear sound was back. It is crazy just how much the clarity changes. I can even hear a change in her vocals and there is no doubt I can hear a lot more micro detail. This just amazes me.

I am sold once again on this tweak and I do not find the change subtle at all. I will not be removing them again. I need to buy the real thing now...

chrisby · « **Reply #261 on:** 22 Dec 2010, 05:39 pm »

TJHUB- sorry if my skimming the last post in the thread doesn't answer the question, but if you think the pig-tails make a difference - have you opened the polka dot door yet?

TJHUB · « **Reply #262 on:** 22 Dec 2010, 06:26 pm »

Quote from: chrisby on 22 Dec 2010, 05:39 pm

TJHUB- sorry if my skimming the last post in the thread doesn't answer the question, but if you think the pig-tails make a difference - have you opened the polka dot door yet?

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is the "polka dot door"? I did some searching, but I didn't come up with anything tangible.

Speedskater · « **Reply #263 on:** 22 Dec 2010, 08:24 pm »

Quote from: TJHUB on 22 Dec 2010, 06:26 pm

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is the "polka dot door"? I did some searching, but I didn't come up with anything tangible.

One answer would be: a Canadian TV children's show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polka_Dot_Door

*Scotty* · « **Reply #264 on:** 22 Dec 2010, 08:35 pm »

chrisby is talking about EnABL treatment of loudspeaker drivers,it looks like rings of polkadots on the drivers cone.
Scotty

BudP · « **Reply #265 on:** 23 Dec 2010, 12:49 am »

Quote

what exactly is the "polka dot door"

TJ, google Planet 10 Hi Fi. They are a licensee of mine. I use their products in preference to my own. Just scroll down till you see a 3/4 view of a driver and look closely at the surfaces. Just eliminates any hint that what you are listening to might be a loudspeaker. The only thing that enters your room is the music..... seriously.

Bud

oddeophile1 · « **Reply #266 on:** 23 Dec 2010, 12:59 am »

Bud,

So, how do you add them to your speaker cone?

jtwrace · « **Reply #267 on:** 23 Dec 2010, 01:00 am »

Quote from: oddeophile1 on 23 Dec 2010, 12:59 am

Bud,

So, how do you add them to your speaker cone?

That will require a new thread...

BudP · « **Reply #268 on:** 23 Dec 2010, 07:46 am »

Quote

Bud,

So, how do you add them to your speaker cone?

Another thread will be needed, assuming denizens of AC are interested in modifying their drivers in a non reversible fashion. The process does function for all drivers. For some, like the GR research drivers, the benefit is limited. The reason it is limited is that music can only sound like music. Audio can sound like a lot of different and exciting things and there are many words to describe these sounds, but music just sounds like music. Once it's right, there is no more to do. At least from the speaker surface out into the room to your ears. There are still those curious wire thingy's, absolutely neutral cables and transformers with two to three times the information content of all others made on this planet. And that just for level one of three.

So, once you have just music, you can dig very very deeply into the provided sources. There is so much more information available than is usually found, even in plain Red Book, that it staggers me. And, once the drivers quit being a problem you can go looking for that information. Another staggering bit is just how good modern signal side electronics are, even in cheap alleged mid fi components. So treating your speakers is really just the beginning of another journey. I have been on it for 35 years and still haven't grown tired of it.

There is a thread devoted to just the art of EnABL treatment here.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1460031#post1460031

Those of you who are interested in digging in to this should read most of this thread first. There is a gigantic thread that precedes this one, but it is both art and arguing and gets damned tedious quickly. If, after you have spent a bit of time and some of you are still interested, we can start a new thread here. I can bring all of the specific driver treatment posts from both threads here and we can get involved.

For those of you not brave enough I recommend Planet 10.

http://www.planet10-hifi.com/

For a piddling sum of money you can buy a cabinet kit and seemingly insignificant drivers that will knock all of your clothes off. Your home speaker system might still be better for audio, but for music.... well all you will really care about is the joy of having art enter your home without any barriers.

Bud

jimbop · « **Reply #269 on:** 24 Dec 2010, 07:23 pm »

Bud, you wrote: "Quickest way to answer your question is for you to make up a pair of the zip cord loops and tie them onto the ground lugs of your amp outputs. If they make a difference that includes sound stage and ease of listening, then it would be worth either investigating a poured ground plane or waiting a bit for the Ground Plain products."

- What is a "poured ground plane" and how do I make one?

- Would this item then replace the ground buss in my amplifier?

Jim D

Folsom · « **Reply #270 on:** 26 Dec 2010, 06:39 pm »

Quote from: jimbop on 24 Dec 2010, 07:23 pm

- What is a "poured ground plane" and how do I make one?

- Would this item then replace the ground buss in my amplifier?

Jim D

I asked the same thing, essentially.

Poured ground plane PCB in audio: Think of it like having a plate of copper underneath (directly) your components on the PCB boards. The power wiring (v+ and v-) would be wired not in planes of copper but single traces that are below the initial ground plane; which creates shielding. Then you could have another poured ground plane between power and signal traces, which again just has traces directly to components and is shielding power from signal. The idea is to create a near field references to ground from what I can tell, as well as shielding. Each plane would have through hole plating, and a tap that goes to star ground for the amplifier, instead of meeting at the same place. For true star ground I use a screw with terminated O ends stacked. Star grounding does not work on a bus bar unless they are all connected on the same tap.

A question I would have might be could you have ground planes poured that do not connect to the components but just star ground, and all of the devices connect to star ground, and have star ground be in the center of a like 4x4 plate of copper? (that is grounded to chassis, *which earth ground is connected to farther away at plug - also important in order to increase ground reference for signal shielding according to BudP, and I agree as I tried it)

You can look up ground planes on the internet but it will be confusing because they try and explain what frequency to tune them to for radio transmitters.

Ground bus in amplifier: As you can tell not exactly, but in a way.

I will say: BudP says it improves all the regular qualities a lot but also makes music more listenable. I say I appreciate what it offers to clarity but will say for listenability power conditioning does a lot more. I mean a very good power conditioner does enough to the point where you might actually wish your system had a little more edge to it in order to keep you awake. I have been considering replacing Kiwame resisters in my phono pre-amp for that reason.

BudP · « **Reply #271 on:** 27 Dec 2010, 04:31 am »

A couple of additional notes to Smiles comments.

Typically a power and signal section are physically separate on a PC board, with power being brought in either through a peripheral trace buss or separate wires. A poured ground plane is not different here, other than that the power components and power traces are shielded with a nearly solid sheet of copper on the opposite side of the PCB from all power and signal traces. The same holds true for the signal components. Obviously this cannot be perfect but needs to be a complete as possible.

The poured ground plane eliminates all ground side trace or wire interconnects, they are merged into the ground plane.

Connections from ground plane sectors to a star central ground may need to make use of discreet wires but they must be in a true star connection, with all of them terminating on the same point, rather than along a ground buss wire intended to provide common connection. Theoretically that common buss wire is at the same potential at all points along it's length. If such were actually true there would be no circulating currents in either grounds or chassis.

As I understand the concepts behind poured ground planes and an instrumentation ground system, that collection point must go directly to a true, non neutral connected, ground point, as in a copper pole buried in the earth. Otherwise it is even more susceptible to induced circulating currents than is a more typical single sided PCB with strip grounds. I have this sort of flexibility. The audible difference between Ground Control and a poured ground plane, properly grounded, with both having instrumentation organization is within the range of "straining to hear it".

The likelihood of being able to apply a proper instrumentation / poured ground to an already produced piece of equipment without significant time and money being spent, is slim. Better to apply the Cat 5 cable discussed in earlier postings and reap some of the benefit available from the Ground Control products. You can also purchase the inexpensive Ground Enhancer product and obtain about the same results.

Only the AudioPrism Ground Control is going to provide all of the benefits of a poured ground plane system, without the risks inherent in actually having one. I no longer have any poured ground planes in my personal audio system. I use good commercial products and make up for their deficiencies with the Ground Control devices. In a reasonably short amount of time I will also bring out a less capable set of devices. More useful than those of my competition, but deliberately not as comprehensive as the Ground Control devices. They will also be simpler, just as carefully designed as the Ground Control devices, but much less expensive, since there is an obvious market for these products.

Bud

satfrat · « **Reply #272 on:** 27 Dec 2010, 04:56 am »

Quote from: BudP on 27 Dec 2010, 04:31 am

A couple of additional notes to Smiles comments.

Only the AudioPrism Ground Control is going to provide all of the benefits of a poured ground plane system, without the risks inherent in actually having one. I no longer have any poured ground planes in my personal audio system. I use good commercial products and make up for their deficiencies with the Ground Control devices. In a reasonably short amount of time I will also bring out a less capable set of devices. More useful than those of my competition, but deliberately not as comprehensive as the Ground Control devices. They will also be simpler, just as carefully designed as the Ground Control devices, but much less expensive, since there is an obvious market for these products.

Bud

I'd say you've spent a little more time researching these topics Bud, I'll be putting my stock into your statements myself.

I have always been a firm believer in power conditioning tho and have many different avenues of conditioning in my system. But nothing has brought it all together more than your research into grounding controls and my system has proven that out in spades. While I doubt I'll go any further into your bag of grounding research myself due to continuing financial concerns, I am forever grateful for your efforts into this vein of research.

Cheers,
Robin

Folsom · « **Reply #273 on:** 27 Dec 2010, 06:44 am »

So you mean to say ideal is that your equipment from star ground would go to chassis, to earth ground, to socket in the wall, and straight out to earth ground rod outside the house? or do you mean run a star ground off of earth ground rod outside the house and directly into star ground in the equipment?

Also to say that if you have some sort of make shift earth ground by living in an apartment building or something you are out of luck and poured ground planes would be less advisable than say the tweaks etc.

BudP · « **Reply #274 on:** 29 Dec 2010, 07:51 pm »

Almost. The ideal is to go from a star point collection of signal grounds to the direct connection to the ground point. Next the same organization for power grounds. Then a separate wire to the chassis, no more than an inch from the ground point. The power and signal circuits should not be connected to chassis at any other point.

A slightly less ideal, but sometimes more useful scheme has the signal grounds connected to the chassis as far from the actual ground point as possible, so that signal ground is distributed across the entire chassis. Power ground is still connected directly to the ground point and the chassis connection to ground is the same.

In an instrumentation ground, the ground point would be connected to a rod buried as close to the equipment as possible, with no connection to mains neutral at all. THIS IS NOT SAFE FOR NORMAL HOME USAGE.

In our modern environments, poured ground planes would be a disaster, requiring all sorts of odd component placement to eliminate air borne EMF from modulating circuits. This is why strip / star collection grounding is employed in commercial equipment. The Ground Control devices just provide a portion of the benefit of a poured ground plane, without incurring the down sides, other than added cost.

Bud

Letitroll98 · « **Reply #275 on:** 12 Jan 2011, 04:06 am »

Ok, a bit of a revival of a middle aged thread. I stumbled on this from a link on another thread (thanks satfrat) and have been playing with concept a bit. First the zip cord, or in my case some no name bulk 16 ga oxygen free copper speaker cable, sure looks like zip cord. Anyway, 24" lengths, 2" stripped, on the negative speaker lugs. It made a difference, not sure if better or worse, but different. Then the same on the Amp neg terminals, no change. Then removed one by one a few days later, no change in soundstage. The speakers were then treated with 6" lengths of the same wire with most of the insulation removed, a more profound difference for the better, now I'm hearing what has been described in these pages. Next will be magnet wire arranged to Bud's specs.

Has anyone measured frequency response when using either the DIY product or the manufactured one? Frequency response is the first place I look when someone says something changed, for better or worse. I got changes in the 2.5khz to 5khz bands, increases with the insulated Zip cord, depressions in the uninsulated. And initial bumps at 16khz and 20khz with the insulated zip cord that dissipated after 24 hours. Measurements were completely ad hoc one time snapshots, but wondering if anyone, Bud included, has done something more rigorous.

BudP · « **Reply #276 on:** 14 Jan 2011, 09:34 pm »

I have lost most of my interest in measurements, unfortunately. This has come about due to the endless wrangling and bickering they seem to always incur.

The EnABL battle has been the major culprit here. Measurements made under strictly controlled conditions, by people skilled in that sort of endeavor, were dismissed because their results did not follow the accepted, incorrect, operating norms for loudspeakers. Most recently, wavelet analysis has again shown very clearly that this process alters a speakers behavior in a profound fashion. And now the critics have taken the position that nothing can be stated about the efficacy of the EnABL process from this form of analysis either.

Measurement of FR is always a good thing. It shows a one dimensional analysis of a process. It does allow some inspection of changes in utilization of materials and techniques and does provide a "paper" trail for those changes. Wavelet analysis shows even more and uses the same impulse that other forms of analysis utilize.

However, all of them are interested only in the loudest signal and it's decay. None of them are able to pierce this veil to look at the sub peak relationships, that provide information for our mental illusion of reproduced sounds, within a volume of space in our listening environment. The tools are just too crude and the analysis of structural coherence is almost nonexistent.

So, no, I have not performed any objective tests on Ground Control. That a loop of wire hung on the ground / return can make any difference in the illusion of space, recreated from an audio system, is already outside of our commonly held understanding. I am sure that there will be measurable differences, since there are audible ones. The applicable analysis, as with EnABL which also works outside of commonly held understanding, is going to cause a similar furor.

I am already bored.

Bud

Letitroll98 · « **Reply #277 on:** 22 Jan 2011, 04:27 pm »

Thanks for the reply. And I agree, unless measurements are treated as the tool they are instead the basis for dogma one can fall into the morass of circular arguments so common on internet forums. That being said, very basic frequency response variations can describe some of the euphemistic claims made about various changes in our systems, e.g. an increase in HF response is often described as more detail, and an increase in the body and wholeness of images can be traced to HF depression.

I like the changes brought about in my system so far and will continue to experiment with the ground control concept. Please don't construe that I'm suggesting that GC is merely frequency response change, it's strictly curiosity as I noticed some changes while I was adjusting a lot of parameters in a new listening room and wanted to know if I should pursue that avenue in more depth. I'm measuring mostly to track wall treatments and bass traps. When I get your to spec models installed I'll post again.

BudP · « **Reply #278 on:** 24 Jan 2011, 01:23 am »

Sounds sane to me. Be happy to help in any way I can.

Do you have a copy of ARTA? They have included wavelet analysis and this along with a CSD may begin to show what you are hearing.

Bud

eclein · « **Reply #279 on:** 24 Jan 2011, 04:24 am »

Hey guys...would headphones benefit from this tweak?? I'm modding some Grado's and there is plenty of room to add the piece...the negative lead in each phone would be OK or another location inside each would be better??
Thanks
Ed