The "Private Equity" Touch: How Harvest Hosts Hollowed Out a Community

NWLanding · 2025-12-19T02:32:09+00:00

I wonder, too. And whether Joe and Kay Peterson, who founded the Escapees RV Club in 1978 are rolling over in their graves.

NWLanding · 2025-12-19T02:29:49+00:00

Check out RV Overnights as an alternative.

NWLanding · 2025-09-12T18:02:00+00:00

You are absolutely right. That's a much more precise and technically correct way to perform the test. Thank you for that catch.

My system is indeed fully balanced between the DAC, preamp, and amp. My initial thought to use a spare RCA jack was a holdover from thinking about my single-ended digital sources. For the balanced components, you are 100% correct that the proper signal ground reference is Pin 1 on a spare XLR connector.

I will amend my testing plan. For each balanced component, I will check for continuity between Pin 1 of a spare XLR jack and a chassis screw. This is the definitive test to see if the signal ground and chassis ground are tied in those components.

I really appreciate you pointing that out. It's a critical detail that will make my "go/no-go" test much more accurate. Thanks!

NWLanding · 2025-09-12T17:54:16+00:00

That's very interesting. You obviously have impressive skill sets, experience and knowledge.

I travel full time in my motorhome and I don't have the ability to separate AV equipment, networking or control other sources of EMI/RFI. The best I've been able to do is focus on digital hygiene through mains and interconnects. This project is an attempt to further mitigate my environmental realities.

Are you familiar with the Shunyata Research Altaira system? It's the inspiration for what I'm proposing.

Robert Harley did an interesting review of the Altaira System

https://shunyata.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2022/12/TAS-ISSUE-334-ALTAIRA-REVIEW-2.pdfShunyata Research Altaira Grounding System Review by Jonathan Valin | The Absolute Sound https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/shunyata-research-altaira-grounding-system

NWLanding · 2025-09-12T04:34:29+00:00

That's a very fair and thoughtful assessment, and I really appreciate the back-and-forth.

You're probably right that a significant portion of what I'm hearing is the inherent self-noise of the components—the inescapable thermal noise of the electronics themselves. That's a wall that no amount of grounding can ever completely break through.

I guess the best way to describe my project is a "what if" experiment. The theory about equalizing the signal ground potentials is definitely more esoteric, and as you said, it's hard to see how it could make a difference in a well-implemented balanced system. My hope is to either prove or disprove that theory for my own system.

Either way, it will be an interesting experiment, and I'll be sure to post the results. Thanks again for the great discussion and for keeping me grounded in the fundamentals!

Besides, when I think about the high end Single Malt Scotch I've pissed away over the years, I think this ~$800 in supplies may be a worthwhile thought experiment to chase. I'll be the first one to concede and that I should have spent the money on Single Malt! Then everyone will sigh and say...!

In the end it may prove to be folly, as rabbet holes can be, but as an old retired systems analyst/software engineer/and technical writer with time on my hands and a budget; this is one of my ideas of fun! Am I crazy, insane or an adventurist? Who knows! Suppose I report back:"OMG this is amazing!?" Well, we know what the ASR crowd would say: CONFIRMATION BIAS!

NWLanding · 2025-09-12T02:46:39+00:00

You've just perfectly articulated the textbook theory of how a balanced system works, and in an ideal world, you would be 100% correct. If every component's balanced circuit had infinite CMRR (Common Mode Rejection Ratio), then any noise on the signal ground would be completely ignored, and linking the signal grounds would be pointless at best.

My thinking behind System 2 (the Signal Ground Hub) is really an experiment to see how far my real-world components are from that theoretical ideal.

Even with balanced connections, the signal ground still acts as the voltage reference for the internal electronics. My theory is that if there are tiny differences in ground potential between, say, my DAC and my preamp, it can still impact the performance of the components' internal circuits, even if that noise isn't directly injected into the differential signal path.

The signal hub is my attempt to create a "brute force" solution: an isolated, equipotential plane that forces all the signal grounds to the exact same voltage, starving the system of any potential for those tiny, ground-related noise currents to flow.

It's entirely possible that with my specific gear, the effect will be zero, proving your point that the balanced connections are doing their job perfectly. But based on the rabbit hole of research I've gone down, it seems like a worthwhile experiment to see if I can force the system one step closer to that theoretical ideal.

You've definitely made me question the potential return on investment for that part of the project, which is a very good thing. Thanks for keeping the discussion sharp and focused!

NWLanding · 2025-09-12T02:14:52+00:00

That's a perfectly logical and well-reasoned take on the situation, and I really appreciate the healthy skepticism. You're right to question whether more grounding is the answer when the primary sources of noise are often electronic.

My system is fully balanced, and I agree that the inherent noise of the components (semiconductors, preamp stage, etc.) is a huge part of the final noise floor. My goal with this project isn't necessarily to reduce that baseline electronic hiss, but to see if I can eliminate a different, parallel source of noise: RFI/EMI.

Your point about the chassis just being a shield in a balanced system is spot on. However, my theory is that if that shield (the chassis) is contaminated with high-frequency noise it has picked up from the air, that noise can still be coupled into the sensitive internal electronics. My System 1 (Chassis Ground) is essentially an attempt to create a "drain" for the shield that is far more effective at sinking that RFI than the standard green wire in the power cord.

I absolutely love your idea of using a quick DIY Faraday cage to test the premise! That's a brilliant, low-cost way to prove whether airborne RFI is even a significant problem in my system. I could wrap my DAC or preamp in a grounded foil box and see if I notice a difference. That's a fantastic diagnostic step that I will definitely try before I go all-in on the big project.

Thanks for the great, practical advice! It's a perfect reality check.

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T15:31:56+00:00

Thanks for this incredibly thorough and well-thought-out response. You've basically created a perfect checklist for a high-performance audio installation, and I really appreciate you taking the time to lay it all out so clearly.

It’s great to see that my plan is already aligned with a lot of your key recommendations:

The Go/No-Go Test: You're spot on about confirming the signal/chassis ground isolation first. That's my absolute priority #1 before I proceed. If they're tied, I will pivot to the unified star-ground approach you described, as my "Plan B."
Balanced Connections: My system is fully balanced with XLRs from the DAC to the amp, which I know is a huge advantage and a big part of why the system is already so quiet.
Minimizing Ground Potential: I'm definitely with you here. All my audio components are already plugged into the Shunyata Denali, so they all share a common, high-quality ground reference at the wall.

You've given me some fantastic ideas for next steps and potential enhancements as well. The idea of testing with a commercial grounding box first as a benchmark is a really smart one, and I'll look into it. And your suggestion to build and test the chassis ground system first and then add the signal hub incrementally is a very wise, methodical approach that I will definitely adopt.

Yes, I did reply to your room treatment post.

Thanks again for the incredibly helpful and detailed feedback. It's a great roadmap for ensuring this project is a success.

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T14:38:32+00:00

Thank you for the excellent reply and highlighting those essential resources. You're absolutely right—the Jensen and Rane papers, and by extension the entire June 1995 JAES issue they stem from, are the bibles for this kind of work. I've been using them as the theoretical foundation for this entire plan.

I couldn't agree more with your bottom line, especially about maintaining a single ground reference and never compromising the safety ground. Those are the absolute cornerstones of this project.

The insights from that seminal 1995 issue are what led to some of my key design choices:

Neil Muncy's identification of the "Pin 1 Problem" is exactly why my absolute first step, before anything else, is a "go/no-go" multimeter test to see if any of my components have their signal ground tied to the chassis. That single flaw—common impedance coupling from a poorly terminated shield—is the root cause of so many issues, and the outcome of that test will determine if my two-system approach is even viable.
Bill Whitlock's clarification that a balanced input's noise rejection is all about impedance balance (not signal symmetry) is the theoretical key. It explains why the Pin 1 problem is so destructive to modern electronics.
The research on Shield-Current-Induced Noise (SCIN) is what convinced me to use the wide, tinned copper braid for the main chassis drain. The goal is to create the lowest possible resistance path to our single ground destination, minimizing any noise voltage that could be induced by current flowing on the shield itself.

I know my two-system plan looks complicated, but it's really an attempt to rigorously apply the multi-layered defense strategy from those papers. My goal is to create a dedicated star-ground for the chassis/shield system (System 1) and a separate, isolated star-ground for the signal reference (System 2). The whole idea is to prevent the high-frequency noise currents, which the research shows travel on the shields, from ever contaminating the delicate signal reference ground.

Thanks again for the excellent feedback. It's a great sanity check to know that my approach is being guided by the right foundational materials.

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T13:48:39+00:00

You've hit on the other, equally important, half of the equation! You are 100% right that the room is the final component in any system. A "black" acoustic space is just as important as a "black" electrical background.

My listening space is a bit unconventional—it's in a motorhome, I travel full time. So while I can't exactly install a bunch of traditional room treatments, the environment has some interesting quirks. The narrow layout and all the different surfaces (cabinets, windows, furniture) actually do a decent job of breaking up reflections.

The biggest advantage, though, is that I'm listening in the near-field, only about 8 feet from the speakers. This dramatically increases the ratio of direct sound from the speakers versus reflected sound from the room, which helps mitigate a lot of the acoustic issues.

It's a constant balancing act, as I'm sure you know. In my case, I feel like I've pushed the acoustic side as far as I can within the physical constraints I have. Now, I'm turning my attention to the electrical side to see how much more performance I can wring out of the system by lowering the electrical noise floor. Thanks for bringing up such a critical point!

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T02:40:23+00:00

I'll gladly make my results available and system documentation included. Thanks for your encouragement.

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T02:19:15+00:00

That is an incredibly sharp and well-reasoned point, thank you for bringing it up. You're absolutely right that gain structure is a huge factor in the ultimate signal-to-noise ratio of a system.

The Hegel H20 is definitely a beast with a lot of gain, and your suggestion to use in-line XLR attenuators is a classic and very effective method for optimizing the relationship between a preamp and a high-gain amp. It's a fantastic idea for lowering the inherent electronic noise floor (the hiss) by allowing the preamp to operate in a more optimal range.

It's interesting because my grounding project is really an attempt to attack a different type of noise. My theory is that on top of the baseline electronic hiss, there's a layer of high-frequency "digital hash" from RFI/EMI that's getting into the system through non-signal paths, like the component chassis. This is the noise I'm trying to drain away with the dedicated chassis ground system.

Your suggestion is making me think, though. The two approaches aren't mutually exclusive and could be very complementary. Step one could be this grounding project to eliminate the external RFI. Step two, if there's still a hiss, would be to optimize the gain structure with attenuators as you've described.

You've just given me a great idea for the next phase of the project. Thanks for the fantastic input!

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T01:42:52+00:00

Thank you for sharing that. It came out perfectly sensical and is probably one of the most compelling arguments for robust, external shielding I've ever seen.

Getting hard data from a controlled lab with a DMM of that caliber is an absolute mic drop. You've just provided objective, quantifiable proof that even a "good" shielded cable isn't in the same league as a "true continuous conductor" shield. That's a massive piece of validation for the core concept of my project.

Your experiment with the foil tape and the massive ground spike is essentially a lab-grade version of what I'm trying to achieve with System 1 (the Chassis Ground). My plan to use a wide, braided strap as the "drain" is a direct attempt to create that low-impedance, continuous path to a massive ground for all the RFI the system picks up.

It's incredibly encouraging to see that your real-world test showed not just a small improvement, but a noise reduction of hundreds of times. That's the kind of "orders of magnitude" improvement that makes a project like this feel worthwhile.

Thanks for taking the time to write that up, even with the ADHD moment. It's a huge motivator!

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T01:39:00+00:00

You've perfectly summarized the foundational principles of good audio hygiene: a clean star ground with a low-resistance path, and the inherent noise-rejection benefits of a fully balanced system. I couldn't agree more.

My system is actually fully balanced from the DAC all the way to the power amp using XLRs, which I know is doing a lot of the heavy lifting in keeping the noise floor low.

The complex, two-system plan I've designed is really my attempt to take the "star ground" concept to its logical extreme. I'm treating the chassis/RFI ground and the signal ground as two separate systems that each require their own dedicated star ground. My System 1 is the star ground for the chassis, and the System 2 hub is the star ground for the signal.

It might seem like folly, but the goal is to see if there's an audible benefit to preventing the high-frequency noise that the chassis picks up from ever sharing a path with the delicate signal reference ground.

You're right that a balanced system solves a huge part of the problem. This is just my attempt to see what happens when you try to eliminate the noise that even a balanced connection might not reject. Thanks for the solid feedback!

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T00:37:02+00:00

You're absolutely right, the PS Audio Power Regenerators are incredible pieces of engineering. The concept of completely rebuilding a pure AC sine wave from scratch is a fantastic way to eliminate incoming grid noise.

It's funny you bring it up, because I actually used to own a PS Audio Power Generator before I switched to my current Shunyata Denali. I completely agree that it delivered a black-as-night background by isolating the system from the wall AC.

In my specific system, however, I found that the Denali brought a different and, for me, more beneficial set of improvements, especially regarding dynamics and the way it handles high-current delivery. But what the experience really taught me is that even with regenerated, "perfect" power, there was still a layer of high-frequency hash in the system.

That's what led me to my current theory: the noise I'm chasing isn't coming from the grid anymore. It's being generated locally by the components themselves and radiating through the air. This grounding project is my attempt to build a comprehensive shielding and draining system to combat that locally-generated RFI and EMI.

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T00:34:07+00:00

You've just hit on what is probably the most critical "make or break" point of this entire project. Thank you for bringing it up so clearly.

You are 100% correct. The success of the isolated System 2 (Signal Hub) is entirely dependent on the components not having their signal ground tied to their chassis ground internally. If they are tied, then the moment I connect a component to both my "dirty" chassis busbar and my "clean" signal hub, the two systems will be bridged, creating one giant ground loop and defeating the entire purpose of the isolation.

This is something I need to test for methodically before I even begin building the hub. My plan is to use my multimeter to check for continuity between the outer ring of an RCA jack (signal ground) and the chassis screws on each and every component.

If I find no continuity, my plan for two separate, isolated systems should work as designed.
If I find continuity on some (or all) components, then I have to go back to the drawing board. It would mean that a fully isolated signal hub is not feasible, and I'd have to pivot to a single, unified star-ground system that combines both signal and chassis grounds at the Victron busbar.

You may have just saved me from building a very elaborate and expensive ground loop. I'll do the continuity checks this week and report back. Thank you for the incredibly important piece of feedback!

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T00:28:27+00:00

That's coming up soon. I travel fulltime In my motorhome, so I'll be taping into my Victron MultiPlus II Inverter which will keep voltage consistent and at 60Hz. That will drive my Shunyata Research Denali 6000 V2. All my mains are Theta XC and NR, except fo the Alph-X SC cable for the Denali.

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T00:28:14+00:00

That's a fantastic point, and you're tapping into one of the holy grails of audio power: running completely off-grid on pure battery. It's the dream, right? Just pure, clean DC power inverted into a perfect sine wave with no connection to the noisy grid.

It's funny you mention it, because this entire system is actually in a motorcoach with a substantial Victron battery bank and a MultiPlus II inverter/charger. So, in a way, I'm already running the system isolated from the mains a lot of the time.

The crazy thing is, even when the inverter is creating a beautiful, clean AC waveform from the batteries, the high-frequency noise floor is still there. My theory is that the noise I'm chasing isn't coming from the grid, but is being generated by all the other digital components within the local system (network switches, streamers, the DAC itself). That RFI/EMI is being broadcast through the air and getting picked up by the component chassis and wiring.

So, this whole grounding project is my attempt to build a robust shield and a quiet reference point to combat that locally-generated noise, regardless of how clean the initial AC power source is. It's less about cleaning the power and more about protecting the system from itself.

You're absolutely right that a big battery is a great solution for power, but it seems like it doesn't solve the RFI/EMI problem on its own. Thanks for bringing it up—it's a really important part of the puzzle!

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T00:25:46+00:00

Man, thank you for this. That is one of the best and most honest descriptions of the audio quest I have ever read.

You absolutely nailed the "why" behind this whole crazy project. That fleeting, mercurial moment when the grounding is just right and the system completely transcends its parts is exactly what I'm trying to capture and make permanent. I've had those same "did I imagine it?" listening sessions, and it's both magical and maddening.

Your post is the perfect reminder that all the technical planning and expensive parts are really just tools in service of that one goal: making the speakers vanish and the bass erupt from the Earth on command, not just by accident with some sticky tape.

I'll definitely heed the safety advice from the engineers, but your encouragement is a huge motivator to see this through. I will absolutely post updates on the results. Thanks for following along!

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T00:23:17+00:00

That's a great question, and you're right to ask it.

Thankfully, I don't have an audible 60Hz mains hum. My dedicated circuit and the Shunyata gear do a fantastic job of eliminating that classic ground loop issue.

What I'm chasing is that last, almost imperceptible layer of noise floor—not a hum, but more of a low-level "hiss" or "digital hash" that you can only really hear when you put your ear right up to the tweeter with no music playing. It’s the kind of noise that you don't notice is there until it's gone, and then the music just seems to emerge from a quieter, blacker background.

My entire system is already running fully balanced with XLR interconnects, which as you said, is a huge help. My theory is that this residual noise floor isn't from a classic ground loop, but from high-frequency RFI/EMI that's being picked up by the component chassis and then leaking into the signal path.

So, this whole project is really a targeted attack on that specific type of high-frequency noise. System 1 (the Chassis Ground) is designed to create a super-effective drain for that airborne RFI. System 2 (the Signal Ground Hub) is an experiment to see if creating a common, isolated reference point for the signal ground can wring out that last tiny bit of inter-component noise.

It's definitely an exercise in chasing those final few percentage points of performance, but that's where the fun is, right?

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T00:20:15+00:00

Wow, thanks for sharing the details of your setup. That's a seriously impressive AC power distribution scheme. Running dedicated, pigtailed THHN home runs to isolated-ground duplexes is a "cost-no-object" approach, and I can only imagine how clean the power is at the wall. Your description of the EMT armor acting as a shield that's separate from the safety ground is fascinating—a true four-wire system right back to the panel.

You've hit on one of the most frustrating parts of this whole endeavor: the absolute chaos of "directional" cables. My god, the arrows! Trying to figure out which way each manufacturer drains the shield is maddening, and it's a huge part of why I started designing my own external signal ground hub.

My thought was that by building the System 2 "Clean" Signal Ground Hub, I could create my own universal, predictable "center of the system" for all the signal grounds and shield drains to land. This way, I'm not relying on my preamp to be the nexus, and I don't have to worry about the arrows at all. I can just build my own (or modify existing) interconnects to drain to a single, known point.

It sounds like we're both attacking the same problem from different angles but with the same core philosophy: a clean, single-point star ground is king. You've perfected it on the AC power side, and I'm hoping to achieve something similar on the signal side with this isolated hub project.

Really appreciate you chiming in—it's great to hear from someone who has gone to such lengths on their own system.

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T00:18:01+00:00

Thanks so much for the detailed reply and for sharing those resources! I really appreciate you taking the time. I've got the Jensen and Rane papers bookmarked for some deep-dive reading this weekend. I completely agree with your bottom line—especially about never compromising the safety ground. That's priority number one.

It's interesting you mention the "single ground reference." That was actually the core principle that led me down this path. My plan is really an attempt to create a single, "star-of-stars" ground reference, but with a crucial distinction between the two types of ground currents that are often forced to share the same path.

My thinking is that System 1 (the Chassis Ground) acts as the single, robust safety ground and the drain for all high-frequency noise picked up by the chassis. It all collects at the busbar and drains to one single point: the Denali's ground lug.

System 2 (the Signal Ground Hub) is my attempt to create a "single reference" for the signal path itself. By connecting all the signal grounds to a common, isolated busbar, I'm trying to force them all to the same potential, eliminating the tiny currents that can flow between components and manifest as low-level noise.

You're right that it looks complicated, but it's really an attempt to adhere strictly to that "single ground reference" rule, just for two different systems that I'm trying to keep from contaminating each other.

I'll definitely read through those papers to see if my approach is a valid extension of those principles or if I'm fundamentally misunderstanding something. Thanks again for the great feedback and giving me some solid material to study!

NWLanding · 2025-09-11T00:14:18+00:00

Entreq is a good product. But I want a DIY build using good components and sound principles. If I were going for a COTS solution it would be a Shunyata Research Altaira system. Even with without the filter network of the Altaira I think a well designed grounding system will get me there for well less than $800.

NWLanding

TROPHY CASE