Can you provide an example of you having done this and can show the difference in such tweaks? Do you know how predictable acoustic measurements are from run to run?
Entreq Coming for Testing/Measurements
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
- Status
Standard measurements are showing a negative effect. And what they show matches the construction of said device. In that regard they are doing the job perfectly.
I should also add that half of my measurements were not "standard" audio measurements. These are electrical instrumentations designed to tease out sources of noise, level, profile of said noise, leakage current, etc. You won't find them in any audio measurement book. But you will find them in the arsenal of any electrical engineer's toolbox.
Since we are debating some equipment that has something to do with electromagnetic interference I will refer to a know case in EMC measurements.
During engineering lectures we are often referred that EMC measurements are a hard and sometimes inconclusive affair and that sometimes we do not have scientific proves of everything. The best known case is the use of cellphones and electronic equipment during flights. Based on aircraft crew reports that laptop computers or gaming devices caused autopilot disconnects and instrument display malfunctions the use of cell phones or other electronic devices was banned during takeoff and landing.
However, the aircraft manufacturers were never able to replicate the reported anomalies in lab tests or controlled conditions. Millions were spend researching this subject using SOTA measuring equipment during for more than two decades and opinions are still divergent. Just by precaution we are not allowed to use of any and all devices during the critical takeoff and landing phases.
But some people seem to believe that the science, sorry, the measurement section of WBF will be able to find in a definitive way why the Entreq device is reported to make systems sound better or why it can not make them sound better. Even without connecting it to the systems where it is supposed to cause some benefit.
During engineering lectures we are often referred that EMC measurements are a hard and sometimes inconclusive affair and that sometimes we do not have scientific proves of everything. The best known case is the use of cellphones and electronic equipment during flights. Based on aircraft crew reports that laptop computers or gaming devices caused autopilot disconnects and instrument display malfunctions the use of cell phones or other electronic devices was banned during takeoff and landing.
However, the aircraft manufacturers were never able to replicate the reported anomalies in lab tests or controlled conditions. Millions were spend researching this subject using SOTA measuring equipment during for more than two decades and opinions are still divergent. Just by precaution we are not allowed to use of any and all devices during the critical takeoff and landing phases.
But some people seem to believe that the science, sorry, the measurement section of WBF will be able to find in a definitive way why the Entreq device is reported to make systems sound better or why it can not make them sound better. Even without connecting it to the systems where it is supposed to cause some benefit.
Surest way to reduce the population of the world by one individual, is to get an EMC expert and ask them about this device. There will be a fatal heart attack right there and then. 
A long wire connected to a piece of electronics, connected to a box with extremely high impedance is a recipe for much increased emissions. The most difficult devices to get emission certification on is ones with wires hanging out of them.
Further, there is no scientific data whatsoever that this device improves the sound generated by your system. User reports that is so, is anecdotal, not scientific. So in no way or shape can you use that, to say that the measurements are inadequate to validate benefits. There are no benefits until demonstrated in a proper manner.
As to FAA ruling, it was testing and measurement that demonstrated there was no danger in allowing electronic devices in flight. It was not a few people saying, "I turned on my laptop and my plane did not crash." So not sure why that story is told. It backs the alternative scenario.
A long wire connected to a piece of electronics, connected to a box with extremely high impedance is a recipe for much increased emissions. The most difficult devices to get emission certification on is ones with wires hanging out of them.
Further, there is no scientific data whatsoever that this device improves the sound generated by your system. User reports that is so, is anecdotal, not scientific. So in no way or shape can you use that, to say that the measurements are inadequate to validate benefits. There are no benefits until demonstrated in a proper manner.
As to FAA ruling, it was testing and measurement that demonstrated there was no danger in allowing electronic devices in flight. It was not a few people saying, "I turned on my laptop and my plane did not crash." So not sure why that story is told. It backs the alternative scenario.
If you are asking in the context of the universe of input signals, that is true. Audio gear for example cannot pass RF signals (not supposed to anyway). They are bandlimited to audio spectrum and somewhat above.
In the context of signals that are in audible range, electrical degradations still occur. We have to then use psychoacoustics to see if the degradations are audible.
.True.
The preliminary data, and understanding of the operation of the device from those measurements doesn't lend itself to any good. Further, you can mimic what it is doing with just the wires leading to it.
Please note that no engineer argues against having an amplifier in your above example. While vast majority would be horrified at any assumption that this box is needed or good in any way. In that manner, the analogy doesn't apply here.
I understand
. This device though, is unlike many. It has only a single wire going to it. It is NOT in the data/music path. It is not a component in your audio chain. In that regard, it cannot be analyzed (by me or others) in the same manner as say, an amplifier. Or even a cable.It is built on an assumption that if you take the ground of a system and "bring it" to some device, you can do some good. The problem is that no "bringing" occurs this way. Electrical signals follow very strict rules. If you have two paths for example, they take the one with least resistance. In this case, this device has extremely high resistance (really impedance). So the currents that want to flow, will flow on your signal grounds already in your pre-amp. They don't "want" to go to this device.
Surest way to reduce the population of the world by one individual, is to get an EMC expert and ask them about this device. There will be a fatal heart attack right there and then.
A long wire connected to a piece of electronics, connected to a box with extremely high impedance is a recipe for much increased emissions. The most difficult devices to get emission certification on is ones with wires hanging out of them.
Further, there is no scientific data whatsoever that this device improves the sound generated by your system. User reports that is so, is anecdotal, not scientific. So in no way or shape can you use that, to say that the measurements are inadequate to validate benefits. There are no benefits until demonstrated in a proper manner.
As to FAA ruling, it was testing and measurement that demonstrated there was no danger in allowing electronic devices in flight. It was not a few people saying, "I turned on my laptop and my plane did not crash." So not sure why that story is told. It backs the alternative scenario.
Until you have a scientific proof that the EMC expert will not survive I will not believe that such question will induce a fatal heart attack ...
Should we also consider that all the scientists who own audiophile power cables are in risk of an hear attack? I was not addressing the anecdotal reports, just that the measurements are not being carried in the systems of the people who report the differences.
Yes, it took more than 20 years testing and making measurements. And as they are not still very sure we must disconnect them at takeoff and landing. This was the main question. Not that we are able to use them in the flight.
Until you have a scientific proof that the EMC expert will not survive I will not believe that such question will induce a fatal heart attack ...
If a power engineer has such a cable, I would love to meet him!
Is that what it does? ...Good, bad, valuable? The reviews are great, the price is right (when you take into consideration all the time and research and material used), customers are happy, this is good solid ground.
Measurements are impossible to be performed properly (or...?) like in real life; this is a very smart audio product for the audiophiles with golden hearing, including Amir. :b
@Amir, I am interested to find out if your measurements, so far, of your Entreq ground box, correlate with your golden hearing in your stereo system? ...Or not? I trust your balanced judgement.
Given the talk about magnetic and electric field, I also measured that this morning. You can read it here: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...reliminary-measurements.476/page-5#post-11905
Here is a sample measurement:
We see that an electric field is created by the connection of the box to my main audio system. However, I can also generate the same effect by using a piece of wire by itself:
Meaning that the only effect the Entreq seems to have, is due to the conductive wire inside of it. This is 100% consistent with previous measurements.
The radiation is all around the box:
So no sinking or cleaning or anything like that is happening. The opposite, generating a radio field is occurring which as I mentioned to Micro, is what we expect to happen when you dangle a wire in the air (surrounded by inert material or not). And that is what we see here, using a very different measurement protocol.
Here is a sample measurement:
We see that an electric field is created by the connection of the box to my main audio system. However, I can also generate the same effect by using a piece of wire by itself:
Meaning that the only effect the Entreq seems to have, is due to the conductive wire inside of it. This is 100% consistent with previous measurements.
The radiation is all around the box:
So no sinking or cleaning or anything like that is happening. The opposite, generating a radio field is occurring which as I mentioned to Micro, is what we expect to happen when you dangle a wire in the air (surrounded by inert material or not). And that is what we see here, using a very different measurement protocol.
I am not sure you should put that kind of trust on my ears Bob
.That said, I connected the Entreq to my main system this morning (did the above measurements using that). I performed an AB test. Absolutely no audible effect occurs. I can't even imagine one to be there, and I am master of imagination.
I used my reference audio clips which sound superb with or without this box and put a smile on my face as I type this. The box plays no role.
Yes because you mentioned few times in the past on your attribute of your ears that were able to pass some audio tests, with, is it fair to say, flying colors?
You are a trained audio listener, and that quality is invaluable with your other great attribute; taking audio measurements with tools that most audiophiles don't want to buy but rather let others like you take them for them. :b
* That black magnetite sand, and copper wire hiding in it, plus the wood box enclosure and small wood caps around the jacks outside the wooden box; I was thinking of making my own.
The speakers are the most important audio component in the important room; once you have them it's fun to experiment on how you can improve further their sound coming out and going through your pair of ears. ...Positioning, measuring with a mic, with your ears, room treatments, EQ too, cables, AC power, ground, isolation devices, etc.
This is a great hobby because there are so many things involved in improving, and it's a dream world for audiophiles, the very definition of its term and genesis, and for audio creators/designers, manufacturers, dealers, acousticians, audio recordists/engineers, artist musicians and sinners and singers, ...all that audio jazz.
- From your measurements so far, in addition to your listening session in your own rig: Not much @ all going on...zero.
I know another guy, from Australia, who also I trust with all the money in my bank account, and I'll check him out...on Entreq grounding boxes.
To be continued ....
I have few theories .... still in suspension.
You are a trained audio listener, and that quality is invaluable with your other great attribute; taking audio measurements with tools that most audiophiles don't want to buy but rather let others like you take them for them. :b
* That black magnetite sand, and copper wire hiding in it, plus the wood box enclosure and small wood caps around the jacks outside the wooden box; I was thinking of making my own.
The speakers are the most important audio component in the important room; once you have them it's fun to experiment on how you can improve further their sound coming out and going through your pair of ears. ...Positioning, measuring with a mic, with your ears, room treatments, EQ too, cables, AC power, ground, isolation devices, etc.
This is a great hobby because there are so many things involved in improving, and it's a dream world for audiophiles, the very definition of its term and genesis, and for audio creators/designers, manufacturers, dealers, acousticians, audio recordists/engineers, artist musicians and sinners and singers, ...all that audio jazz.
- From your measurements so far, in addition to your listening session in your own rig: Not much @ all going on...zero.
I know another guy, from Australia, who also I trust with all the money in my bank account, and I'll check him out...on Entreq grounding boxes.
To be continued ....
I have few theories .... still in suspension.
Last edited:
I do not have the time or expertise to debate in depth the articles I refer bellow, but I could easily afford the time to read and understand them. Although they do not address directly the Entreq device, they can give interested readers some ideas of the concepts being involved in a debate about a device that claims to be a RF "ground box". And yes, the links were sent to me by an EMC expert that is not interested at all in participating in audio forums.
AN1561: Radiated Interference in Audio Circuits - Intersil
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjA-9n8ysbMAhWG6xoKHWMEDewQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intersil.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2FIntersil%2Fdocuments%2Fan15%2Fan1561.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGiRUad2jdJEztlYsD2TCDsiQafSw&bvm=bv.121421273,d.d2s
A Novel Method of Testing for Susceptibility of Audio Equipment
audiosystemsgroup.com/AESPaperNY-SCIN-ASGWeb.pdf
Sometime ago I asked about measurements up to 2 GHz - these papers show the result of a frequency sweeps from 100kHz to 6GHz with resonances at 3.9 GHz that can carry audio signals.
Remember that a device that allows energy to be radiated is by definition lowering its intrinsic noise levels - if the energy is being radiated there is less energy left. All modern audio devices include microprocessors and similar devices that generate a lot of RF noise. This thread is now triggering my interest - if my free time was not committed to other tasks for the next months I would get an Entreq as soon as possible.
AN1561: Radiated Interference in Audio Circuits - Intersil
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjA-9n8ysbMAhWG6xoKHWMEDewQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intersil.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2FIntersil%2Fdocuments%2Fan15%2Fan1561.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGiRUad2jdJEztlYsD2TCDsiQafSw&bvm=bv.121421273,d.d2s
A Novel Method of Testing for Susceptibility of Audio Equipment
audiosystemsgroup.com/AESPaperNY-SCIN-ASGWeb.pdf
Sometime ago I asked about measurements up to 2 GHz - these papers show the result of a frequency sweeps from 100kHz to 6GHz with resonances at 3.9 GHz that can carry audio signals.
Remember that a device that allows energy to be radiated is by definition lowering its intrinsic noise levels - if the energy is being radiated there is less energy left. All modern audio devices include microprocessors and similar devices that generate a lot of RF noise. This thread is now triggering my interest - if my free time was not committed to other tasks for the next months I would get an Entreq as soon as possible.
Last edited:
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Sorry but no. What is being radiated by the wire inside of the Entreq, is picked up energy by the wire leading to it. The chassis ground of the equipment is at very low impedance so it doesn't want to pick up noise that way (or else your audio equipment would produce tons of audible noise on its own).Remember that a device that allows energy to be radiated is by definition lowering its intrinsic noise levels - if the energy is being radiated there is less energy left. All modern audio devices include microprocessors and similar devices that generate a lot of RF noise. This thread is now triggering my interest - if my free time was not committed to other tasks for the next months I would get an Entreq as soon as possible.
Here is the measured noise right at the negative terminal of my analyzer:
Here is what happens when I hook up a short, 6-inch wire to it and then Entreq:
We see increased noise level due to that wire now picking up noise.
Finally, here is what the noise looks like when we use a more typical, 2 meter wire to Entreq:
As we see the length of the wire is 100% determining the level of noise. So it is that wire that is picking up unwanted noise in the air, and the Entreq acting like an extra piece of wire on its own, radiating just like any other unshielded wire would.
Nothing is taken out of the audio equipment per first measurement that shows little was there.
All we are doing is attracting noise, and radiating noise. That is what the data says.
No one can be sure that the chassis ground is at very low impedance at these ultra high frequencies - most audio designers are not experts at such frequencies. It is why I found the link I referred so interesting. And as I can not see your images at WBF, I will not comment on them.
And those experts would have a heart attack, thinking that you can lower the chassis impedance by connecting it to a long piece of wire, going into an unterminated box with extremely high impedance.
Those papers are not what you stated, nor do they help your argument in the slightest. They are actually reasons to not use Entreq.
As usual in debates, the conclusion was yours, not mine, you would have the responsibility of killing the guy.
And sorry, IMHO the papers help interested people understanding the real problems in assessing the operation (or no operation, surely) of the device, as they show RFI problems that can exist in real devices.
- Status
Similar threads
