2. misc-audio
  3. 170486-84906

QSA Stones

I have had 6 QSA Stones on top of my power conditioner (2 each of red blue and clear) for about three months, and have really enjoyed what they bring to my system. This week, I got another set of 6.


One thing I have learned over many years in this hobby is the importance of power supplies, and the impact they have on the sound of individual components and systems. A number of audiophiles with DIY skills upgrade the power supplies on components with bigger and/or better capacitors, and in various other ways. Unfortunately, I lack the skills to do this.


I ended up placing the new stones on top of the power supplies of my CD transport and amp (1 red, blue and clear on each). To me the very positive results sound similar to upgrading the power supplies, without all the hassle of soldering etc. Particularly with my amp, there was an increased sense of ease and musical flow, along with more solidity and authority.


I don’t claim to have any real explanation as to how the QSA stones work, but it seems to have something to do with their interaction with electromagnetic fields, such as those around power transformers. Fortunately, I don’t need an explanation to enjoy the results🙂


If you think this is all bunk, or can’t see how these type of things can have any impact on the sound, that’s fine, but I’ll politely ask you to refrain from making repeated posts to that effect. The QSA Stones are obviously not for you, nor is this thread directed towards you.
tommylion

Showing 6 responses by noske

noske
783 posts
 
What many don’t seem to get is that the existence of these “characteristics” is entirely independent of explanation.


Oh, I sort of disagree, if I understand that correctly.  I think there are perhaps quite well-known explanations for people advocating the existence of these characteristics.

Slightly different but on a similar theme, on another current thread there is a discussion about colours and music. This may seem rather mystical to the casual observer, however it is quite well documented and researched and there is even evidence of this trait being inherited.
noske
783 posts
 
I feel sorry for all of you that are unwilling to try something outside of your limited belief systems.


Insofar as certain tweaks are concerned, the word "belief" is not in the vocabulary of the skeptic. Any requirement to have the necessary belief system is conceding that no known science may explain certain characteristics.

Which makes statements such as the one quoted rather redundant.

Sometimes certain unusual technology may be caught by this requirement to have faith were it not possible for purveyors of said technology to take full advantage of the patents system for a variety of very good reasons.  Credibility being one reason.

A possible  example I read about recently on these pages was the liquid technology as embodied in teo products.
noske
783 posts
 
What's that word being used that I said was not in the vocabulary of skeptics?
noske
783 posts
 
@coralkong What do you care how much money I spend on and what I choose to try/buy?

....

I have no doubt who the ignorant flat-earthers are in this thread.


I don't think the primary issue is money - I now consider that to be something of a deflection.  To some the issue is about the ethics of making claims that cannot be substantiated in any objective manner.

This of course is applicable in many areas of our day to day living in a civilized society.

Please elaborate on exactly what it means to be a flat-earther.



  
noske
783 posts
 
If people want to chime in and tell other people how thing "can’t" work, then why chime in at all? If you have an explanation WHY, then share it and move on.

The same goes for everyone else that chimes in to explain everyone else’s ignorance or usually just calls everyone a liar. Their opinions and 5 dollars will get you a cup of coffee.


As a matter of general principle, the onus is placed on the person making a claim that in fact the claim has merit and has general application. This is a positive claim.

Others may then show cause as to any reason they may have doubt about the positive claim. This rebuttal may question any number of substantive and material facts that the claimant may make in support of their claim. Should this raise any doubts, the person making the claim is free to clarify, or seek to provide further information.

This approach is somewhat different to any claims that any tweak does *not* work. This is the scenario in the provided quote (roughly - the issues there are perhaps inadvertently conflated if you have read this far) and is an entirely different matter, and as some may know, it is tricky to prove a negative..
noske
783 posts
 
it is tricky to prove a negative..

Unless you bring common sense into it.




No, that is not sufficient. What this is perhaps suggesting is that certain facts may be taken as truth because they are so well known or authoritatively tested that there can be no doubt.

Even that can be tricky in a variety of circumstances. A trite but well known example - there was no evidence of black swans before about 1800. They were unicorns. Common sense said no way, dude. Yet today they are (relatively) well known.

Check out the Wiki entry on Orgone. Whilst the subject of justified mirth (in hindsight), nevertheless some very substantial claims were based on its existence.

Anyway, the notion of what constitutes common sense is not universal as between different cultures or other metrics of consciousness, so that’s another hurdle not considered in my first paragraph, and quite possibly more important in the circumstances.
More to discover