Entreq Coming for Testing/Measurements

[Steve Williams]

This also is the "Measurement Based Audio Forum" here on WBF and why this header was started.
Why should test data by Amir be censored here? If some members of this forum can't behave themselves in a professional manner here they should be the ones that are moderated.

Censored?

My request was made based on what I stated above. I have no intention of having a repeat as we witnessed in the last Entreq thread. As I have said many times I have no pony in this race. I don't own Entreq nor do I own Tripoint however there are a significant number of Entreq users here. You and I both know that your comment about moderation is a simple one to say but not so simple to carry out. If you only knew the amount of work the last Entreq thread cost me and I don't get paid for any of this.Hence my suggestion as to where the measurements should be posted. Far from censoring. Amir's forum was started for this very reason.

 

[amirm]

Censored?

My request was made based on what I stated above. I have no intention of having a repeat as we witnessed in the last Entreq thread. As I have said many times I have no pony in this race. I don't own Entreq nor do I own Tripoint however there are a significant number of Entreq users here. You and I both know that your comment about moderation is a simple one to say but not so simple to carry out. If you only knew the amount of work the last Entreq thread cost me and I don't get paid for any of this.Hence my suggestion as to where the measurements should be posted. Far from censoring. Amir's forum was started for this very reason.

The reasons for creation of ASR forum is not what you state. Nor is this the place to discuss it Steve. This is the charter of this subforum:

"A forum where objectivists can ask questions and exchange ideas regarding the science of audio as well as anything pertaining to audio that involves tests, measurements, ABX testing etc. We have all indicated a desire to read about the science behind our hobby but this is one forum where the subjectivists will not be allowed to derail or flame an objectivist thread with the comment "I trust my ears". As a result to all members this is intended to be a flame free forum and the warning on the door will say "Enter At Your Own Risk"

Anyone who want to ignore the clear wish of Steve and I in the above regard, will face sanctions. This will be an orderly disclosure of data and discussion about it. You can object to the data but you can't ignore the rules of the subforum. I know I have no patience for any in-fighting from either camp. I like to get this data out, fulfill my promise to P-O, and move on.

 

[LL21]

Amir,

All respect to someone who actually went out to try to measure this thing. Kudos to you. let me ask a few questions, hopefully not too remedial and certain meant in a constructive way:

1. You have a super-duper signal producer...you take a measurement whereby you subtract the 'pure signal part' and the leftover bit is basically distortion.

2. Question 1: Would it be fair to say that most anything connected to a pure signal is going to have some varying amount of additive/distortive effect to the signal? In other words, its a question of HOW much distortion gets added to the original 'pure signal tone'?

3. Question 2: In a multi-part system of preamp, amp, blu-ray player, amp, maybe flatscreen, power strip and subwoofer...there are loads of sources of emi/rfi, impedance mismatches and other 'messiness' that all will contribute to a distortion of that original pure signal...fair comment?

4. Question 3: In the case of a SYSTEM, is it possible that Entreq is doing what 'some' (dealers/distributors) say it is doing...which is creating a common impedance level for various components, or perhaps drawing some emi/rfi back into the main ground materials inside the unit?

5. Question 4: Would it be possible for you to send a pure signal thru such a system...see how messed up the signal comes out at the other end...and THEN measure exactly the same signal coming thru the exact same system (but this time with the Entreq setup)?

In other words, if one accepts that Entreq distorted the signal (but also that most any component added to a network would probably also distort a signal from a 'pure tone generator'...is it possible that relative to an 8-component system (which is perhaps 8x more messy a signal), the Entreq could actually do 'something' positive by drawing away/back/whatever 'some' of those many distortive effects/artifacts?

 

[amirm]

Amir,

All respect to someone who actually went out to try to measure this thing. Kudos to you. let me ask a few questions, hopefully not too remedial and certain meant in a constructive way:

And it sets the example on how to post constructively .

1. You have a super-duper signal producer...you take a measurement whereby you subtract the 'pure signal part' and the leftover bit is basically distortion.

2. Question 1: Would it be fair to say that most anything connected to a pure signal is going to have some varying amount of additive/distortive effect to the signal? In other words, its a question of HOW much distortion gets added to the original 'pure signal tone'?

That's right. The measurements show both noise and distortion/extra products that were not in the source.

3. Question 2: In a multi-part system of preamp, amp, blu-ray player, amp, maybe flatscreen, power strip and subwoofer...there are loads of sources of emi/rfi, impedance mismatches and other 'messiness' that all will contribute to a distortion of that original pure signal...fair comment?

That's right.

4. Question 3: In the case of a SYSTEM, is it possible that Entreq is doing what 'some' (dealers/distributors) say it is doing...which is creating a common impedance level for various components, or perhaps drawing some emi/rfi back into the main ground materials inside the unit?

By itself it has no such power based on my testing. That effect can be created by the user as Ack mentions through the mere fact of taking multiple points in your system and tying them together. If such an effect exists and is audible to your liking, you can proceed to do so without Entreq based on data I have now.

5. Question 4: Would it be possible for you to send a pure signal thru such a system...see how messed up the signal comes out at the other end...and THEN measure exactly the same signal coming thru the exact same system (but this time with the Entreq setup)?

Yes and this suggestion was made on ASR Forum. The difficulty is lugging my instrumentation workshop to the audio system. Being a lazy person, I have not yet volunteered to do this given what we have discovered so far (i.e. new data would likely be redundant).

In other words, if one accepts that Entreq distorted the signal (but also that most any component added to a network would probably also distort a signal from a 'pure tone generator'...is it possible that relative to an 8-component system (which is perhaps 8x more messy a signal), the Entreq could actually do 'something' positive by drawing away/back/whatever 'some' of those many distortive effects/artifacts?

Based on everything we now know about the workings of the device, no. All measurements data so far shows that what Entreq does is additive. The wiring to it, and the wire inside it, pick up noise and send it back on the ground wire of your audio system. Whether we start with an ultra clean system like my analyzer or a noisy system, the function will not change. An unterminated wire in a box does nothing to draw anything to it and dissipate it.

Now, for completeness, I might do the testing you request so hang in there for final answer .

 

[DonH50]

Charter or not it seems clear that measurements and objective-oriented viewpoints are not welcome at WBF. I suspect many folk do as I do and click on "New Posts" to get to threads and so do not notice what sub-forum they are in. I have stopped myself from posting a few times but will mistakenly post where I am not wanted now and then. Maybe leave it at ASR and just close this subforum? Frankly posting at either place lately is more effort than it is worth with virtually all enjoyment taken away by all the fighting going on. I'll have a lot more free time and lower blood pressure by simply keeping away.

FWIW, it is fairly easy to show the effect of isolation devices like Stillpoints, if you have the equipment. One of the big challenges for those of us with science (engineering, anyway, as I now know from ASR that we hairy-knuckled engineers are not scientists ) is that the equipment to make such measurements is expensive and often hard to come by. I know the sun is hot but proving it by measurements is tough. Nor do I have $25k sitting around for a nice AP unit. I was lucky to have audio-band test equipment at previous jobs, but nothing in the lab I work now goes that low (aside from a DMM). The other big obstacle is making the right measurements and interpreting the results. That takes a lot of thought and experience and, just like bias and placebo effects with hearing, can lead to a wrong conclusion.

Whatever - Don

 

[amirm]

I should not that I do not have any data that the additive noise/distortion products are audible in a negative manner. It is the case of instrumentation being far more sensitive than our ears. And that injection of noise into equipment ground is not an easy matter. The equipment ground path is far lower impedance and will shunt a lot of the extra noise.

 

[NorthStar]

This is not the ear forum. It is the measurement forum. Anyone has a pair of ears and can do that evaluation. My role in this is having the test equipment and knowledge to run tests to determine if objectively we can identify what the box really does. The measurements demonstrate that which after seeing the data, is an obvious conclusion.

That said, I am continuing my testing. That is why the thread on ASR Forum is titled, "Entreq "signal grounding" Preliminary Measurements." It was intended to get feedback from knowledgeable people on the direction was going.

But yes, I plan to also listen but again, my unique value that I bring is in instrumentation. Any of you can listen and post your opinion.

Kudos Amir for all your efforts in expanding our knowledge (technical + measurements). You are 100% right, and it is because of guys like you that we can advance, and always open-minded with scientific objectivity and also the other part; subjective listening sessions. The two are stronger together, than one alone by itself. They compliment each other and it's our search to learn on their interrelated commonalities, in being able to read the graphs and their correlation with the music to our ears from our gear and speakers and cables and zillion of audio tweaks out there, some legitimate more than others, with our intelligence, good balance, logic common sense, facts, and again always open-minded to reference and preference and accuracy of our audio acuity in all things related, theory and physicality of applications of a solid ground, earth. :b

Forgive me for all the prose but I'm on prozac.

Bob, he is the person who loaned me the equipment. See http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...llus-grounding-in-england&p=379996#post379996

Yes, I knew that Amir; I've read the thread, and I did some extended research on my own. I follow closely your tentative measurements, and the good contribution of some members like Ray and others ...
That gentleman from Sweden, Per-Olof Frieberg, seems to be a nice guy, a cool entrepreneur, farmer turned into audio advancement for the love of our hobby, better and sweeter music to our ears. That too is farming, farming sound, quality sound.

So, he's the one who would know best on how to measure his products; to guide you, and to guide others who are asking for.
That's the only reason why I mentioned him, because Speedskater asked about a good measurement protocol.

Me I know nothing, less than nothing, only what I've read and what I'm about to read further ....
That's why I'm here, to learn and enjoy life, and that's why I'm over there too; to share my hobby, my passion, my music, and learn from the masters of ultra high end audio.
If I was rich I would drive a Bugatti and own a super duper hi-fi stereo system. That was my destiny, but somewhere along the way I got lost atop a mountain, with the eagles and the bears. :b

Entreq, we analyze (you and others) what can be measured and not, plus what can be heard and not. That's our interest. And in this particular thread the measurements are the main emphasis; and not because the listening is not important because it is very much, but because we want to advance in knowledge and in wisdom. ...Without committing suicide and without killing anyone. :b ...With zest, with courage, respect, acupuncture, veracity, tenacity, ....all positively. Not because we are inferior, not because we are superior, because we can meet on an equal common ground...in the middle of that balance...audio and human balance.

Our beliefs are only as strong as we allow them to expand towards the best truth; pleasure of our senses for the benefit of our soul and spirit.

Entreq measurements...learning as we go.
__________

* This, my personal view: I believe in the happy marriage of objectivity with subjectivity, like the majority of members here and everywhere.
That division I understand it for the conflicts that it sometimes creates. Still the two are inseparable in our audio/music passion.

It is good to differentiate the genuine from the hyperbole; that's one part of our audio journey. We don't judge, we don't prejudge, we observe, listen, measure, we take our time to live happy with the differences, with our differences of the known and unknown.

What we do is who we are. The restrictions and frontiers we make and penetrate is our world.
Natural elements, like Alberta's wild fires right now, are not easy for many...some already lost everything.
It is affecting our entire economy in Canada.

But our blue planet is a beautiful one, and on it there are many many beautiful blue people.

Entreq, that's where we are @ ... and more measurements and more understanding of what those grounding boxes do the our audio signals transmitting our music.
It's the objective (tentative) part of the audio equation, the sector of WBF.

I noticed few members absent of posting from a while now; they are part of this community, their voices and absences speak and resonate through our chords.
We're like children, we are, and everywhere else. We should be feeling real good to live where we live. ...Entreq included, and Still Points too, or not...it depends. :b

Why are we here on Earth? To entreq ourselves, to discover a solider ground. ...Nothing wrong with that, and it's not exclusive, we all have the capability to expand gloriously, all 7.35 billion people. It's just that it's a lot of work and we've been @ it since the beginning of human life, the human species, the homo sapiens, the human race here on our very small and beautiful blue planet, Earth...among all the other planets of our galaxies from the multiverse.

We know less than zero, and aiming towards one.
__________

Sorry, it's part of my thinking process today. :b

 

[microstrip]

(...) FWIW, it is fairly easy to show the effect of isolation devices like Stillpoints, if you have the equipment. One of the big challenges for those of us with science (engineering, anyway, as I now know from ASR that we hairy-knuckled engineers are not scientists ) is that the equipment to make such measurements is expensive and often hard to come by. I know the sun is hot but proving it by measurements is tough. Nor do I have $25k sitting around for a nice AP unit. I was lucky to have audio-band test equipment at previous jobs, but nothing in the lab I work now goes that low (aside from a DMM). The other big obstacle is making the right measurements and interpreting the results. That takes a lot of thought and experience and, just like bias and placebo effects with hearing, can lead to a wrong conclusion.

Whatever - Don

Don,

Your examples are a good point for debating measurements, engineers and science.

If we assume that Stillpoints work only as isolation devices they are fairly easy to measure as you say. However if we admit that their purpose is also selectively coupling the object they support to dissipate its own vibrational energy to ground while at the some time isolating, things become much more complicated and the simple measurements one will carry will not fully describe the Stillpoints performance.

And your second example is a no example. Proving that the sun is hot by measurements is an easy job if you are a scientist and know physics - once you know the blackbody radiation theory and a little of optics and spectroscopy you can measure its temperature just with a few optical filters and a photodiode. The infrared thermometer I use to measure the temperature of the tubes of my amplifiers does the same, but is limited to 900ºC.

IMHO a measurement must have science and technique behind it. I am not a specialist in audio instrumentation but for example, in order to measure very low jitter people had to study the problem and create special test signals and instruments to measure it, it was not just connecting the CD player to the oscilloscope or audio analyzer and observing a sinusoidal signal. Also IMHO in order to successfully measure the Entreq - and I have never put my eyes on such devices, let alone my ears - we must first know what it is its purpose and how it is supposed to work. Than we can think how to measure it.

Again IMHO I feel that the Entreq must be measured with a similar technique that we would use to measure a power cable.

 

[LL21]

Based on everything we now know about the workings of the device, no. All measurements data so far shows that what Entreq does is additive. The wiring to it, and the wire inside it, pick up noise and send it back on the ground wire of your audio system. Whether we start with an ultra clean system like my analyzer or a noisy system, the function will not change. An unterminated wire in a box does nothing to draw anything to it and dissipate it.

Now, for completeness, I might do the testing you request so hang in there for final answer .

In your experience, are most components additive to SOME degree? ultimately, i have to imagine any component will be unable to pass a signal perfectly without in some way passing along some form of imperfection...essentially an additive or subtractive element.

Clearly, in adding any component to a system, we presumably continue to add more and more flaws since every component is inherently imperfect and therefore causing some form of distortion. In which case, one would not add ANYTHING to a system...but if we had no components in a system, then we would also have no music.

But that is also not the point, because while every component is clearly adding its own imperfections along the reproduction path...in many cases, there are components that also enhance the sound reproduction chain.

Put another way, an amplifier clearly takes a signal and adds a distortion to it...the signal going thru it is distorted...so that would be BAD. BUT, it is equally possible that the amp is probably doing a lot of good things because if one hooked up a CD player w/ volume control directly to a huge pair of speakers, it probably would not be able to drive those speakers...and the resulting sound signal coming from the speaker would be far WORSE than if we had added ANOTHER FLAWED component (the amp) in order to amplify the signal and drive the speakers properly.

Coming back to Entreq, in the context of a system, does the Entreq then having any redeeming possibly effects on the overall sound that could (like the amp example above) prove to do more good than bad?

In no way am i trying to say Entreq is good for a system...just trying to look at the way we analyze components in the context of complex systems. If an amp is clearly going to add SOME level of distortion (ie, bad), that alone cannot in any way say that we should not have an amp in a system. On the contrary, again, having an amp is absolutely necessary because without one, the resulting system can often be far worse in signal fidelity.

 

[fas42]

In your experience, are most components additive to SOME degree? ultimately, i have to imagine any component will be unable to pass a signal perfectly without in some way passing along some form of imperfection...essentially an additive or subtractive element.

Clearly, in adding any component to a system, we presumably continue to add more and more flaws since every component is inherently imperfect and therefore causing some form of distortion. In which case, one would not add ANYTHING to a system...but if we had no components in a system, then we would also have no music.

Not so much having more components, but more flexibility is additive in regards to imperfections. In the audio world simplicity is your friend - reduce the functionality to the absolute bare minimum to get the job done, and your chances of getting class sound are so much enhanced. Trouble is, most people want to have the options - and so many times shoot themselves in the foot straightaway; major surgery is now required to recover from that initial, non-optimal first step.

Case in point: my current project has a vintage NAD integrated at the heart of it, and in raw form its sound was pretty mediocre, although the dynamics were promising. Why? Because it's full of options, everything is switchable, the front panel is full of buttons - lots of junk in the component to make it more attractive to a purchaser, which all add defects to the sound. So, first major sweep through in the 'fixing' was to remove, bypass all the really nonsense bits, reduce the unit to a pure amplifier with zero options - now we're starting to get somewhere!

So, I deliberately was subtractive, removing everything that wasn't actually necessary for it to do its job - discarding non-critical complexity. The benefits are, that I'm that much closer to achieving satisfactory sound.

If the Entreq is to have any benefit it will be to filter out or dissipate some type of noise energy, wherever it comes from, a subtractive function. Minimal complexity, hopefully benign apart from having some sort of useful function in subtracting the impact of sound degrading mechanisms.

 

[caliaripaolo]

This is not the ear forum. It is the measurement forum. Anyone has a pair of ears and can do that evaluation. My role in this is having the test equipment and knowledge to run tests to determine if objectively we can identify what the box really does. The measurements demonstrate that which after seeing the data, is an obvious conclusion.

That said, I am continuing my testing. That is why the thread on ASR Forum is titled, "Entreq "signal grounding" Preliminary Measurements." It was intended to get feedback from knowledgeable people on the direction was going.

But yes, I plan to also listen but again, my unique value that I bring is in instrumentation. Any of you can listen and post your opinion.

ok,
so please may you run a test using the following procedure?:

1. insert entreq into your audio chain, on spare input of your amplifier for example
2. wait 2 days
3. place an high quality microphone (connected to a spectral analyzer) at your listening point
4. play a "pink noise test signal"
5. save the picture
6. disconnect Entreq cable from the spare input of your Amplifier
7. repeat steps 4 and 5 and compare
   

 

[LL21]

ok,
so please may you run a test using the following procedure?:

1. insert entreq into your audio chain, on spare input of your amplifier for example
2. wait 2 days
3. place an high quality microphone (connected to a spectral analyzer) at your listening point
4. play a "pink noise test signal"
5. save the picture
6. disconnect Entreq cable from the spare input of your Amplifier
7. repeat steps 4 and 5 and compare
   

Or a 30 second snip of complex music.

 

[LL21]

Not so much having more components, but more flexibility is additive in regards to imperfections. In the audio world simplicity is your friend - reduce the functionality to the absolute bare minimum to get the job done, and your chances of getting class sound are so much enhanced. Trouble is, most people want to have the options - and so many times shoot themselves in the foot straightaway; major surgery is now required to recover from that initial, non-optimal first step.

Case in point: my current project has a vintage NAD integrated at the heart of it, and in raw form its sound was pretty mediocre, although the dynamics were promising. Why? Because it's full of options, everything is switchable, the front panel is full of buttons - lots of junk in the component to make it more attractive to a purchaser, which all add defects to the sound. So, first major sweep through in the 'fixing' was to remove, bypass all the really nonsense bits, reduce the unit to a pure amplifier with zero options - now we're starting to get somewhere!

So, I deliberately was subtractive, removing everything that wasn't actually necessary for it to do its job - discarding non-critical complexity. The benefits are, that I'm that much closer to achieving satisfactory sound.

If the Entreq is to have any benefit it will be to filter out or dissipate some type of noise energy, wherever it comes from, a subtractive function. Minimal complexity, hopefully benign apart from having some sort of useful function in subtracting the impact of sound degrading mechanisms.

Thanks and makes sense.

 

[TBone]

Case in point: my current project has a vintage NAD integrated at the heart of it, and in raw form its sound was pretty mediocre, although the dynamics were promising. Why? Because it's full of options, everything is switchable, the front panel is full of buttons - lots of junk in the component to make it more attractive to a purchaser, which all add defects to the sound. So, first major sweep through in the 'fixing' was to remove, bypass all the really nonsense bits, reduce the unit to a pure amplifier with zero options - now we're starting to get somewhere!

My pre offers a mode switch(Stereo/L only/R only/Mono/Reverse), balance control and tape monitor switch ... w/ a modified bypass switch to direct the CD or LP signal past all those switches/pots/wires (+additional solder joints) direct to volume/gain stage.

Addition by subtraction:
CD ... (non-direct/direct)
switches=(5/2)
pots=(2/1)
wires=(9/5)
solder joints=(14/6)
total=(30/14)

not taking into account any changes / quality of the pots, switches, wires, and even solder ... the reduction in parts/connections alone was considerable. The extra transparency given the direct route was obvious, but not always the best sonic wash. For instance, when playing a bright sounding CD, the slight but obvious dulling / darkening of the signal thru the non-direct route could be considered beneficial to some. One chap actually liked the non-direct route because he felt it offered more lower-end impact to the bass. In reality it doesn't, but in comparison to the direct route which sounds obviously leaner by comparison, the non-direct route can be said to sound "fuller".

Will measurements support the above? Well, I'm not certain, haven't plotted any comparative results to date, but I may soon.

If the Entreq is to have any benefit it will be to filter out or dissipate some type of noise energy, wherever it comes from, a subtractive function. Minimal complexity, hopefully benign apart from having some sort of useful function in subtracting the impact of sound degrading mechanisms.

Using a low output mc cart within a very heavy urban RFI area, proper shielding/grounding/routing became ever-so critical, and it took me quite some time, trial & error, to finally eliminate RFI from my phono-circuit. Maybe its just me, but the last thing I'd want to introduce to any system suffering from heavy RFI issues, is another "antenna".

 

[caliaripaolo]

I suspect any positive results people report are really due to star-grounding at one point -

you are very far from the truth!! I use 2 Poseidons which have separate connectors, 1 for each module (Poseidon has 3 separate cells inside).

 

[microstrip]

ok,
so please may you run a test using the following procedure?:

1. insert entreq into your audio chain, on spare input of your amplifier for example
2. wait 2 days
3. place an high quality microphone (connected to a spectral analyzer) at your listening point
4. play a "pink noise test signal"
5. save the picture
6. disconnect Entreq cable from the spare input of your Amplifier
7. repeat steps 4 and 5 and compare
   

There are many reasons why the suggested methodology is inadequate - perhaps the more relevant here are that the resolution would not be adequate and pink noise does not allow measurement of artifacts.

Or a 30 second snip of complex music.

Spectral analyzers can not analyze music signals! You need your ears to analyze such signals ...

Acoustical signals (signals coming from microphones) are not able to measure the effect of such devices. We should not forget that we are addressing the so called "small differences" in audiophile jargon. Perhaps this one should be called "very small difference" .

 

[Eichenbaum]

ok,
so please may you run a test using the following procedure?:

1. insert entreq into your audio chain, on spare input of your amplifier for example
2. wait 2 days
3. place an high quality microphone (connected to a spectral analyzer) at your listening point
4. play a "pink noise test signal"
5. save the picture
6. disconnect Entreq cable from the spare input of your Amplifier
7. repeat steps 4 and 5 and compare
   

It's a better procedure IMO. I'm sure Amirm agrees.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...orrection-Why-is-there-resistance/page11/#102

 

[microstrip]

you are very far from the truth!! I use 2 Poseidons which have separate connectors, 1 for each module (Poseidon has 3 separate cells inside).

Yes, this is the most disturbing aspect of these devices. They are not classical "ground boxes" as used in electrical engineering terminology.

 

[caliaripaolo]

perhaps the more relevant here are that the resolution would not be adequate and pink noise does not allow measurement of artifacts.

we do not need to measure the artifacts. We simply need (sorry, you need, beacause I know the effect since I tested it on my system ) to know if those boxes make any positive effects.
Standard measurement IMO doesn't make sense here.

 

[Whatmore]

I wholeheartedly agree with those who say that these are the wrong measurements.

There's another set of standard, well understood measurements that should be used : those that deal with confirmation bias