Someone mentioned magnets were being used to cut down on RFI/EMI. That’s an interesting idea in light of the fact, no pun intended, that RF is comprised of photons which as we know have no magnetic charge. Even if they did how would magnets attract all the RF in the room? Doesn’t make sense. After a while you'd have a big clump of photons sitting there in the room. As Judge Judy says, if it doesn’t make sense it not true.
A Big DIY Bang for Your Buck?
I believe in getting the biggest bang out of my audio buck that I can. I don't know about you but my audio budget is actually limited.
I find it interesting when I hear about folks spending a zillion on the best magnetic cables and then someone comes along with some new cable technology like new liquid-infused cables that equal or best the magnetic cables at a fraction of the price. Some makers of magnetic and other cables may want you to believe that a patent pending means there must be something there that ordinary Joe Audio could never make himself. My experience leads me to say -- don't believe it.
I have been using neodymium magnets for years in my cables and around my system to improve SQ -- at a fraction of the cost that makers of magnet-containing products charge. OK, mine may not be at the very top of the performance chain when compared to those expensive products, but who cares? I have managed to get stunning returns for a pittance. It would have cost thousands, or tens of thousands, to obtain similar results from various makers.
The same applies to audio makers with a patent pending (or an actual patent) who market little aluminum audio resonators the size of pimples. I make my own resonator pimples for about a buck apiece -- with stunning results. I saved over $4,000 making 70 of my own. Maybe they are not at the very top of the performance chain compared to those expensive products, but who cares? I am very happy with results that are far beyond what I expected when I started out.
I am having a lot of fun doing DIY projects at home that reap wonderful results at a small fraction of the cost charged by audio makers for their similar products. Have others had similar experiences making their own audio products at home? Can you share your DIY experiences with us?
I have been using neodymium magnets for years in my cables and around my system to improve SQ -- at a fraction of the cost that makers of magnet-containing products charge. OK, mine may not be at the very top of the performance chain when compared to those expensive products, but who cares? I have managed to get stunning returns for a pittance. It would have cost thousands, or tens of thousands, to obtain similar results from various makers.
The same applies to audio makers with a patent pending (or an actual patent) who market little aluminum audio resonators the size of pimples. I make my own resonator pimples for about a buck apiece -- with stunning results. I saved over $4,000 making 70 of my own. Maybe they are not at the very top of the performance chain compared to those expensive products, but who cares? I am very happy with results that are far beyond what I expected when I started out.
I am having a lot of fun doing DIY projects at home that reap wonderful results at a small fraction of the cost charged by audio makers for their similar products. Have others had similar experiences making their own audio products at home? Can you share your DIY experiences with us?
219 responses Add your response
Spencer, I did not understand geoffkait's post on colored magnets and took it as mockery and sarcasim, the mistake lies with my lack of knowledge of what I am still guessing at is painted magnets. I realize now that I was still mad at geoffkait about what he said in another thread and it played out here. Plus I am not a quantum physicists. geoffkait, Radio frequency (RF) is any of the electromagnetic wave frequencies that lie in the range extending from around 3 kHz to 300 GHz. EMI is used to jam radio frequncies, I was under the impression that the field generated by magnets was vectoring out or perpendicular to the surface. |
I do quite a lot of DIY, sabai. All my electronics, my turntable, cables, and I also modify speakers and tonearm. It's very satisfying. My Koetsu alone is unmodified. I don't pretend to have the best circuit topology (although it's pretty good), but it is the best in terms of components; and more importantly, it's best in terms of what I want to do. I build in the controls that I want, like variable RIAA compensation. I also build in the opportunity to test components in my system, which leads to objective results following blind testing. Just about any DIY project is worth the trouble if you stick to the physics. That's important, or you can spend big bucks on what amounts to a tone control, or worse, just placebo effect. The physics says capacitors and resistors and transistor and tubes. And clean, low ripple power supply. And connectors with good metallurgy. And clean records. And room treatment, which I forgot the last time I talked about this, ditto resonance control for turntables. Plus, site-specific problems which need fixing. If you live near a railroad line, you need to control vibration with suspension on your turntable. If you live near a telecom farm, you need to control RF. If you build it, you will use it (probably). I've done it since grad school, and now I'm retired. What's changed is the sophistication of the devices, but not the fun. |
And now, for something completely different. I am building an ultrasonic record cleaner, having been given a rotted out ultrasonic cleaner from my dentist when he got a new one. Took off the two 80hz transducer discs and glued them onto a rectangular metal dish used in cafeterias to keep food warm as you walk along the Def serve line. Then the same controls from the old cleaner. Will make the actual record holder and spinner as in the you tube videos for the project. About $70. Instead of $4000. |
Kavakat, nice experiment. Placing of transducers is an art, I’m told, so don’t be too discouraged if it doesn’t work well the first time. Another issue is power - you need 50W per record, according to the DIY Audio thread, which is also my experience. And something to heat the bath. I find that 40C is about right. At least to start with; actually I use 48 +/- 3, but I have a commercial unit with good temperature control. Also, an 80KHz transducer is the perfect choice, and absolutely requires an inch spacing between each record to let the US wave develop. There’s a thread by Rushton here which can tell you quite a lot. Nice project. |
the best diy i do is keep moving my speakers and listening chair until i have the perfect sound for the right cd , the recordings of cds is so different speaker placement is vital if you want to get the best out of any system , i love neil young recordings they are very consistent, i find at least one in five cds especially some of the new recordings need the speaker placement diy , biggest free upgrade for me |
The guy saying the paint color on magnets makes a difference is the same guy who told us several years ago that one of his little clocks affects the sound of a live symphony orchestra and the picture on a television even if the battery in the clock is dead. You decide who is worth listening to. That's the last I'll have to say about this individual. So lets drop all the snarky comments and silliness (paint colors on magnets make a difference) and talk some science. If you focus on what is really happening in a cable or any path that a signal follows then it makes sense that magnets will affect that signal. Talking about electron flow is fundamentally the wrong way to describe what is happening. The water flowing in a hose analogy is fundamentally flawed. The correct way to look at it is that energy is being transferred from the source to the load (like amp to speaker) in the form of an electromagnetic wave. Any movement of electrons is a result of the energy transfer, not the other way around. This is proven by the fact that electromagnetic waves do not need electrons in wires to travel as evidenced by the ones that travel from a radio tower to your receiver's antenna. Since the moving energy has a magnetic component, and magnets interact with each other, it makes sense that introducing magnets will affect this transfer. It seems to me that the end result can only be that the signal is changed (distorted). I suppose that change could be perceived as an improvement. For this discussion to really be useful we need some results as Parabolic states. Like where the magnets were placed and how it affected the sound. |
mains, I agree that the inconsistency between recordings means we sometimes have to move things around to optimize the sound. But I prefer moving my chair to moving my speakers. parabolic, I make some of my own power cords and insert cylindrical neodymium magnets inside the connectors. I also use magnets on various components and devices, and on the breaker box. Since each system is different no one can tell you exactly where to place magnets (and how many) to optimize the sound in your system. You will inevitably need to do a lot of experimenting to find this out. This is really a process of trial and error. herman, Very well said. Regarding the placement of magnets, I have given some suggestions in my comments to parabolic, above. How do magnets affect the sound? They make the sound clearer and improve sound stage continuity. The sound is not distorted by installing magnets. On the contrary. They help clear up the lack of clarity in the sound that one may not be aware of until the magnets are installed. Of course, this is in my system. So YMMV. |
herman The guy saying the paint color on magnets makes a difference is the same guy who told us several years ago that one of his little clocks affects the sound of a live symphony orchestra and the picture on a television even if the battery in the clock is dead. You decide who is worth listening to. That’s the last I’ll have to say about this individual. So lets drop all the snarky comments and silliness (paint colors on magnets make a difference) and talk some science. I said this subject would open up a big of worms. Well, folks here come the worms. Just like I said. What’s funny is his plaintif call to drop the snarky comments. Pure gold! |
Sabai, I don’t question that you hear an improvement. What is undeniable is that if the magnets do change things, that change is a distortion of the original. By definition a change in any signal is a distortion of that signal. Distortion doesn’t necessarily mean it is worse, only that it is different. However, I get your point as distortion is usually used to annotate a negative result. If what you are doing to change the signal sounds to you like it is clearer then that is a good distortion. |
Herman If you focus on what is really happening in a cable or any path that a signal follows then it makes sense that magnets will affect that signal. Actually, it doesn't make any sense at all. The reason it doesn't is just as I got through explaining a few posts ago - the magnetic field produced by the magnet on the cable is orthogonal to the signal flow. Which in layman terms means it won't affect the signal. |
Someone mentioned magnets were being used to cut down on RFI/EMI. That’s an interesting idea in light of the fact, no pun intended, that RF is comprised of photons which as we know have no magnetic charge EMI stands for ElectroMagnetic Interference. RFI stands for Radio Frequency Interference which is comprised of electromagnetic waves, not photons. the magnetic field produced by the magnet on the cable is orthogonal to the signal flow Since you can orient the static field of the magnet in any direction you please and the magnetic field of the signal is constantly changing it makes no sense that this would be true. Anytime you bring 2 magnetic fields near each other they will interact. I'll leave it to the group to decide who is correct. The person stating facts that can be found in countless scientific textbooks or the person stating RFI is comprised of photons. In the meantime, I will bow out as there is no point in any further debate about pseudoscience versus real science. |
Another important point for me is that you do not have to buy expensive magnetic cables to get a really big improvement in sound. You can spend a few dollars on magnets and experiment. It takes a lot of time and patience. But since this is a labor of love for me that's not a problem. If my audio budget were unlimited I might go ahead and spend thousands of dollars on a single cable. But, at this point in time, my audio budget is not unlimited. So, I am relying on intuition, imagination and creativity to get me where I want to go. So far, so good. |
Look, it cost me $70 to make $70 HFTs (I call my version HFRs -- High Frequency resonators). It would have cost me $4,200 to buy them from SR. So what if they're not the same as Ted's? They are doing a great job in my system. I looked up his patent. He uses crystals under the small screen at the bottom of his HFTs. OK, I have some chunks of quartz crystal at home. I'll see that I can do to add crystals to my HFRs and then give a listen to hear if they improve the sound even more. |
sabai OP geoffkait, It improves the sound by affecting the signal. You've been hoodwinked, Sabai. When magnets are used around the room, on chassis, on walls, on wood shelves, on mirrors, on glass, they have no bearing whatsoever on the signal. Now, somebody might find some rare instance where magnet affect the signal in a positive way, but usually magnetic fields hurt the sound, which I've stated pointed out. You know, the magnetic field from transformers and the induced field from current traveling down wire. The latter is why the magnetic conduction cables sound so good, or so it would appear from all the hoopla. But not because magnets affect the signal like your thinking. In fact you yourself use magnets in the connector not on the wire. Do you think the magnets are attracting electrons or photons? give me a break! The magnetic conduction cables address the induced magnetic field in at least two ways I can see. |
I already stated the signal IS affected by magnets. Just not in a good way. Let me give you an example. If you remove the steel I.e., magnetic door from the circuit breaker box the sound will improve significantly. Putting the magnetic door back on degrades the sound. Plus the reason manufacturers went from steel chassis to aluminum chassis was primarily a sound issue. If you like the sound of magnetic chassis then steel chassis is for you. |
Herman Geoffkait: Someone mentioned magnets were being used to cut down on RFI/EMI. That’s an interesting idea in light of the fact, no pun intended, that RF is comprised of photons which as we know have no magnetic charge. to which Herman replied, EMI stands for ElectroMagnetic Interference. RFI stands for Radio Frequency Interference which is comprised of electromagnetic waves, not photons. Try to keep up with the discussion. Electromagnetic waves are comprised of photons. All electromagnetic waves. Light, X-rays, radio waves, what have you. They’re all photons. then Herman wrote, I’ll leave it to the group to decide who is correct. That's mighty decent of you but I think we’ve already seen what happens when you let the group decide. 😩 |
OK, you have me on a technicality about photons but you are still wrong at the most fundamental level. As you can see from the quotes below and many others, if you care to look, photons are usually reserved for visible light. The term photon (meaning "visible-light particle") was coined for these energy packets. from http://prasoondiwakar.com/wordpress/trivia/origin-of-word-photon The word photon can be broken down to Greek word phōs, which means light. Phōs can also be related to Sanskrit word bhā or ābhā which means light. When you discuss RF you usually don’t hear any discussion of photons, just the electromagnetic wave. In any case they are all electromagnetic waves so any contention that RF does not have a magnetic component is just wrong from http://www.universetoday.com/74027/what-are-photons/ Photons are basically the most visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/photon The photon is the fundamental particle of visible light.
photon[foh-ton] A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force As always, it is interesting to see how some twist the science to suit their needs. In this case, latching onto the nonmagnetic nature of photons to justify a position while ignoring the fact that it is also an electromagnetic wave. I apologize to those who are more interested in the end result than the science behind it. |
No, you’re the one that’s wrong at the fundamental level. Light is photons and electromagnetic waves. That’s why light travels at the speed of light. It’s also why audio signals in wire travel at near light speed - because the signal is comprised of photons. Audio signals would travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. Everything that’s in the electromagnetic spectrum is comprised of photons. Light, all radio frequencies, gamma rays, X-rays, audio signals in wire. They're all in the electromagnetic spectrum AND they're all comprised of photons. Follow? |
Seriously, a triangular, three dimensional device, cnc manufactured or alternately 3D printed, aluminum luminary lattice pattern prosthetic placed at the pustular apex of the cortical cray layered cranium facilitates mass efficiency air transfer of photons, electrons and skin particle pollution but with perennially positive db sensitivity resulting in way improved fidelity. No way, yes way.... dude. |
I like waffles, myself...good maple syrup, butter.... What? Oh, yeah....yes, I can see there's some confusion going on here...I'm drawn to it like a moth faced with a strong source of light....not that I can offer any pithy commentary on basalt as a cure or copper bracelets or high-end cables. I just like reading this stuff...;) |
geoffkait, You make an good point: "Electromagnetic waves are comprised of photons." Herman, You make a good point: " ... it is interesting to see how some twist the science to suit their needs." There are a number of things going on here. Yes, photons are the carrier for the electromagnetic wave. But the wave is indeed affected by strong magnetic fields. Note the Faraday effect and the MOKE effect (Magneto Optical Kerr Effect ). The effect of a strong magnetic field on electromagnetic waves is enough to create discernibly positive sonic effects on the sound produced by audio systems. The signal is indeed affected by magnets, and in a very good way, as one can hear when experimenting with this directly. I believe these effects are the result of polarization. In my opinion, there is a lot more going on in the photon/particle stream than has already been explained here -- or, possibly, than has even been explained by modern theory. But, in the end, this is not an intellectual or a scientific pursuit for me. My bottom line is improvement in the sound. |
toddverrone, Just would like to say thank you, I put 1/2" thick Closed-Cell Neoprene foam into bottom of two-way monitors and have been rewarded with better sound top to bottom... geoffkait, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation Electromagnetic waves are produced whenever charged particles are accelerated, and these waves can subsequently interact with other charged particles. EM waves carry energy, momentum and angular momentum away from their source particle and can impart those quantities to matter with which they interact. Quanta of EM waves are called photons, whose rest mass is zero, but whose energy, or equivalent total (relativistic) mass, is not zero so they are still affected by gravity. A photon is a single quantum of light or of any other form of electromagnetic radiation has a zero rest mass and is always moving at the speed of light. But the energy or work from photons , RF or audio cables, can take on only discrete values. |
There are more implications in the scientific domain, as I have been alluding to: http://www.iflscience.com/physics/magnetic-fields-can-control-heat-and-sound/ Acoustic phonons have magnetic properties: https://phys.org/news/2015-03-landmark-magnets.html |
Good one Sabai, temperature and sound. Here's a scientific trick involving temperature and sound anyone can do at home and it's FREE. It doesn't get any cheaper than that! All you need is plain old tap water. Everyone should be familiar with the relationship of heat and sound, that sound travels faster through warm air than it does through cold air. So you can easily control how sound waves travel through the air in your room by placing bowls of very cold water out in front of the speakers in a row, let's say 3 or 4 bowls depending on how big the room is and how big the bowls are. Thus when you listen to your favorite track you'll notice it's clearer, more open and more realistic. Because the sound waves are bending downwards due to the slowing up of the waves close to the bowls of cold water more sound reaches the listener's ears. Tell your friends. |
geoffkait, If you read my posting and my earlier reference very closely you will note that I am not talking about bowls of water. This kind of digression is not helpful. It merely trivializes matters and diverts attention from the subject at hand. The bottom line is that magnets, if used correctly, do in fact have a positive effect on audio system sound. |
Sabai, I really don't understand why you are being so confrontational. I have already told you I have been using magnets to improve sound for almost 20 years. We just happen to disagree on some of the details for better or worse. The reason I posted the bowls of water thing is not really out of line on this particular thread, you know, since the topic is cheap DIY tweaks. |