Did someone forget the Roach Motels again? 😛
Showing 50 responses by geoffkait
Been using crystals for eons. Brilliant pebbles was the first comprehensive suite of crystal products for audiophiles. Brilliant Pebbles was introduced at the London HiFi Show circa 2003. They require break in and are directional. Not for the squeamish. 😬 Was Brilliant Pebbles the biggest seller in Audiogon history. You decide. Geoff Kait Machina Dynamica Power to the Pebble! |
Different crystals have different frequency bandwidths of operation. No crystal is wideband so various types of crystals in combination can often produce better results than any single crystal. Experimentation is recommended but certain locations seem like a slam dunk, like on top of CD PLAYER over the spinning disc, on top of output transformer, on top of Tube Traps, in proximity to small vacuum tubes. In certain locations the resonance of the stones can hurt the sound, so don’t assume more or bigger is better or that they can be used anywhere. One of my products employs teeny tiny stones of various types including but not limited to sapphire, carnelian and obsidian and is highly effective when used as directed. |
Generally speaking crystals are not conductive. That is not to say that some crystals, not all, exhibit electrical properties such as the Pyroelectric Effect or Peizoelectric Effect. Most, not all places where crystals are effective in audio systems turn out to be non electrical anyway, you know, like on top of CD players, speaker cabinets, room corners, where crystals’ resonance control properties come into play. In many cases, such as inside electronics and on wall outlets, to name two, it’s their anti resonant properties at play as opposed to anti RFI properties. |
I use pure black Tourmaline crystals for my Tourmaline Gun. Which is the reincarnation of Brian Kyle’s Tourmaline Gun. Of course Tourmaline is a well known pyroelectric crystal and produces negative ions when heated. It’s rather unlikely tourmaline’s pyroelectric property would be present or activated, whatever when applied to a RCA Jack or connector. Obviously all unused RCA jacks should be covered with something, Cardas Caps or whatever. I also am the proud inventor of using crystals on interconnect connectors and many other locations around the room. Brilliant Pebbles is what, almost 15 years old? Time flies when you’re having fun. 😛 |
Another piece of the evidence that crystals are primarily anti resonance devices is that ideal locations for crystals around the room can be found using a SPL meter and an appropriate test tone such as the one found on the XLO Test CD. What you’ll find is that there are many peaks in the room including out in the 3D space of the room where the sound pressure is much higher than the average sound pressure in the room. It’s these sound pressure peaks where the crystals - mine work best for this application since they’re designed with the audiophile in mind and have very wide bandwidth - improve the sound. So, you have to ask yourself, what’s going on here? Well, it’s not such a big mystery. It’s like the tiny little bowl resonators I alluded to, the threads here a few months back get into all the gory details of how the tiny bowls work including vibration control and RFI/EMI absorption. In any case, I think it’s clear that crystals usually operate in the room by absorbing mechanical (acoustic) vibration and reducing comb filter effects. Placing crystals or groups of crystals at first reflection points, room corners especially on the floor, at points on the wall where there are high sound pressures like on the back wall between the speakers, and on glass windows and sliding doors, among other things, is a very effective way to treat room anomalies. Even hanging them out in the space of the room from the ceiling to address the peaks out in the room. And as I mentioned before even when crystals are placed on or inside wall outlets, in proximity to electron tubes, inside breaker boxes, on top of electronic components, on stereo cartridges, on top of CD players, where effects might appear related to RFI/EMI, it’s actually vibration that is the issue. And if you have any tube traps or Helmholtz resonators around, or tiny little bowls, crystals will improve their performance. Now, there may be some other, more mysterious things going on - I never say never, but crystals in audio applications, even on audio components and speakers and cable connectors, appear to be resonance and vibration control related. And if anyone has any ideas about any other mechanism other than vibration absorption and RFI/EMI absorption by all means lay it on me, I’m all ears. |
Finally! The suspense was killing me. The OP steps up to the plate, taps the plate a few times with his bat, gets set, swings ...and ...misses! Whoosh! The breeze feels good. I hate to judge before all the facts are in but it looks like this thread is destined to become a repeat of the tiny little bowl thread. Note to self: Sometimes it’s better to remain an observer and refrain from getting involved in one’s own trollie mollie OP. |
My products each employ various crystals of various sizes and types. The reason I use multiple crystal types per product is because all crystal types have their own "bandwidth" if you will, so using multiple crystals in the same location/application spreads out the effective bandwidth. The "bandwidth of operation" for a crystal is a function of the specific atomic structure of the crystal, a symmetrical 3D structure. So agate might work very well in one place but not so well in another place. And because crystals are resonators they can hurt the sound in some places. Trying to match a certain single crystal to an audio application is a little too much trial and error for me. 😀 |
I realize the idea of RFI/EMI absorption or dissipation using crystals has been bandied around a lot but actually I find that - in almost almost all cases - the method of operation is vibration control. It doesn’t make sense that crystals react one way or the other to RFI/EMI since RF is moving at light speed and is all around the room simultaneously, so the idea that a crystal or crystals can influence a room full of RFI/EMI is a little far fetched. Crystals are not magnets for RFI/EMI. Even when crystals are used in proximity to electron tubes or wall outlets or the circuit breaker box the method of operation is most likely vibration control, not RFI/EMI absorption, although I can see why some might think so. This mechanism of crystals to control vibration can be easily demonstrated by placing my crystals on top of tube traps and other similar devices, allowing those devices to operate more efficiently. Also on glass windows and sliding glass doors. I always find its best not to constrain or suppress the natural operation of crystals as resonantors using Blu tack or similar materials rather let the crystals touch whatever you place them on unencumbered and free to resonate. |
northernescape Geoff, never said crystals do not work. >>>>Then what was all that "scientifically impossible" mumbo jumbo? I believe I believe and that always has kept tinker bell alive for me. >>>>>>Whatever that is supposed to mean. just suggested maybe just really test them as to real effect, which as we all noted is extremely difficult to impossible bg! >>>>>>As you all noted? You mean all of the naysayers, the ones who have no experience with crystals? I suspect you want things both ways. As to scientific, that would require testing, which we do not have, so until proven false(the rationale for utilizing a null hypothesis in the scientific method), they must work......huh?? >>>>You are assuming a great many things. If someone wishes to test my crystals or any crystals anyway they wish, please BE MY GUEST! There are many audiophile products based on crystals, not just mine. So one wonders, how do you know? and please stop denigrating science as a whole, you would not have audio, save live performances, without science!! >>>>>Huh? I’m not denigrating science as a whole. I’m criticizing the misuse of science when trying to attack an idea or a thing. I thought I was clear. Go back and re-read the sentence with the phrase "9/11 was a Government conspiracy" in it. cheers geoff kait machina dynamica advanced audio concepts "The difficult we do quickly; the impossible takes longer." |
"Scientific explanations" have been given for everything from why bumblebees can’t fly, to why battleships can’t float, to why there cannot be UFOs, why we never made it to the moon, to why 9/11 was a Government conspiracy. Give me a break. Gee, I hate to judge before all the facts are in but it appears nobody has actually stepped up to the plate and given a reasonable explanation - a scientific explanation - why crystals CAN’T improve the sound. So far all I see is a lot of who shot John and angst. I also note that one fellow brought up his credentials, just like I predicted he would, as if that would win the day. |
Northernescape, I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say. What exactly are you claiming is "scientifically impossible?" Be careful, don’t use the old Appeal to Authority on me. It won’t work. I’ve been immunized. Besides, we already have people here whose mission is protecting naive audiophiles from unscrupulous shysters and ensuring the Laws of Science are not sullied. |
 wolf_garcia Negative ions (as in air fresheners) attach to dust particles causing them to fall out of the air. The good news is the air is cleaner, the bad news is there are more dust particles on everything. Thunderstorms also do this, although indoor thunderstorms seem extreme and perhaps should be avoided ("Bob, why is the cat smoldering?"). That's very good, Wolfie. 🙄 |
 northernescape Lai, 100% agree. I really really do.Many are the physicians who have prescribed sugar pills to great patient benefit. If it works for you obviously keep it! >>>>>>>But can be shown that a thing is or is not a placebo by careful testing. That's a pretty obvious Strawman argument you just made. But...But beware of situations in audio somewhat analogous to Münchhausen's Syndrome, in that the audiophile unwittingly HAS to try solutions, that are proven scientifically impossibly unable to improve sound, because of an intrinsic need. >>>>>>Oh, geez, another Strawman argument. Maybe they are scientifically impossible in your mind. That's not the same thing as scientifically impossible. If it is inexpensive enough, generally really no harm(and I guess this would be wallet dependent), but if carried to extreme, it would represent a detrimental "syndrome". >>>>>Who are you to decide how much anyone can spend? Often coupled with dogmatic defense in the face of valid criticism, this situation would be less than ideal. I believe all of us have seen this behavior amongst the audiophile population. However, if one really believes anything makes the sound better, bearing in mind the previous cautionary imperative, more power to you!! >>>>>>This is all starting to look like dogmatic criticism, not valid criticism. Sorry. Any study, including double blind, nearly measures response numbers. Almost never are they anywhere near 100%, the reason for statistics and probability. The two standard deviations or "95%" probability of the result not being due to chance Never, ever states it is the correct result absolutely, just that it is the statistically correct chance of being the result. We scientifically accept that, but never deny that it might be incorrect. Many audiophile fringe issues seem like this. The real issue is absolutely 100% we all do not hear the same and this, perhaps more than anything, answers the variance in audio perceived benefits. >>>>>>Of course there won't be 100% agreement for anything audio related, for the reasons I already alluded to. That's why I suggested throwing out the negative results if most results are positive. If there is only one test and its results are negative it doesn't mean anything. I dare say what appears to be a fringe issue to you is an advanced concept to some others. |
Northernescape And I guess I do have to add to this thread there is a reason that most scientific studies involving humans and responses are double blinded! AND INCLUDE A PLACEBO TO ASCERTAIN THAT EFFECT.. BG... Nope, doesn’t work for audio. Might be OK for pharma. There are just too many reasons the tests can be done wrong for audio. Therefore nothing can be concluded if the test results are negative. Best to just throw them out. In audio we see the threat of controlled blind tests frequently, and the dreaded placebo effect and it’s ugly sister, expectation bias, you know, as if the mere threat of such is sufficient to scare the opposition into submission or "prove" the controversial device under consideration must be a hoax or scientifically impossible. "Most scientific studies...." Lol. Double blind tests. Ewwwwww! |
Koestler was the Author of Darkness at Noon (German: Sonnenfinsternis) is a novel by Hungarian-born British novelist Arthur Koestler, first published in 1940. His best known work, it is the tale of Rubashov, an Old Bolshevik who is arrested, imprisoned, and tried for treason against the government that he had helped to create. Anyone not see the irony? |
avsjerry *L* Well, we’ve obviously hit another of those ’MHO’ walls... >>>>>>It’s a wall of your own making. IMHO avsjerry You’re right, geo....with the right ’viewer’, one can ’see’ RF. UV, EMF, and on through the alphabet soup of contractions. If would be fascinating to set up a space to attempt to view the effect that crystals, brilliant or no, would have on audio wavefronts.... >>>>Or just use another sense. Like, say, hearing. avsjerry I’m just an annoying skeptic about claims made about ’things’....we live in an ad-verse world where claims are made about nearly anything that are intended to drive the product into our hands and the cash out of our pockets. This car, that hair product, our beer, your health or lack of it.... >>>>Uh, what claims? Besides, real skeptics investigate things. |
Come on, people, it’s not like you can just sit them down any old place. Their placement must be precise and specific to whatever issue you’re trying to address. It's easy to place crystals places where they hurt the sound. People sometimes ask me, "Hey, how come you charge so much for Brilliant Pebbles? They look like you got them out of an aquarium." I use a number of pure crystals, both semi precious and precious stones, of various types. Some of the crystals I use are sapphire from India, ruby from Burma, topaz, tourmaline and even diamond. |
asvjerry OK, so I got ’overamped’, But...any effect crystals might have would be very localized, as in the crystals themselves. They won’t act like a sponge in a larger volume. RF is an electron excitation....photons are light ’carriers’. If we could ’see’ RF, right now you’d be in a very dense fog.... Oh, you can see RF with the right goggles. Just like infrared light, you know, invisible light. Everything in the entire electromagnetic spectrum, including gamma rays, X -rays, and invisible light - and RF - is made of photons. They just have different wavelengths, that’s all. It’s got nothing to do with electrons. That’s why we now have infrared and X-Ray telescopes for observing objects in space, so they can "see" different wavelengths. Hel-loo! |
These AA threads on crystals linked below go back even further than the ones Sabai posted. I came out with Brilliant Pebbles in 2003 at the London HiFi Show. They had already been around for a few years. A good time was had by all. Well, maybe not all. 😀 Hi-Fi News Show, London, Sept 2003 -- Audiopax/Ecosse/Meitner exhibit coordinator (Precious Music, Scotland): "Now, if I say that dozens of people said we had the best sound at show, many others said we had the best sound they had ever heard, many dealers, competitors and reviewers came round to check out the room and in particular the Audiopax Amp and Meitner dac...well you can imagine we felt pretty pleased with our efforts." (4 Brilliant Pebbles were used in this room -- one on each Audiopax speaker and two in room corners.) https://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/search.mpl?forum=tweaks&searchtext=Brilliant+Pebbles Geoff Kait Machina Dynamica Power to the Pebble |
People often cite the piezoelectric effect as the operating mechanism for crystals in audio applications. And that crystals improve the sound by absorbing or dissipating Radio Frequency Interference. But how can that be if RF is comprised of photons? Photons have no mass; so crystals cannot be squeezed (thus producing a voltage). So, there must be some other operating mechanism. |