Entreq Tellus grounding,in england

[Rodney Gold]

The folk who spend on that DO NOT feel deceived .. they can afford it and in their minds it makes a difference
Why spend a fortune on spode to drink tea out of a china cup rather than a glass .. cos ppl think it tastes better
Why spend money on a meal that is artfully arranged at a restaurant.. it's cos folk believe it tastes better if it looks beautiful
Personally , I think the grounding box is utter nonsense .. but that doesnt make me have to crusade against those that buy into it

 

[Blizzard]

Is that piezoelectric?

Yes just like the magic crystals in the cheap plywood box.

 

[Blizzard]

The folk who spend on that DO NOT feel deceived .. they can afford it and in their minds it makes a difference
Why spend a fortune on spode to drink tea out of a china cup rather than a glass .. cos ppl think it tastes better
Why spend money on a meal that is artfully arranged at a restaurant.. it's cos folk believe it tastes better if it looks beautiful
Personally , I think the grounding box is utter nonsense .. but that doesnt make me have to crusade against those that buy into it

Yeah lets let the poor guys be you're right.

 

[spazmatron]

Yes just like the magic crystals in the cheap plywood box.

Can I smoke the insides of my grounding boxes then? Maybe that's the best way to hear the improvements?!

The problem is you guys have never herd it! When combined with WA quantum chips it's a real standout! The synergy between the two makes for a huge improvement in all areas of the subjective experience.

 

[esldude]

What I find fascinating is how the notion that such a product and it's efficacy gains tenure. Fifty years ago did the HiFi buying public make the effort to understand just how equipment works, is the current situation just a reflection of general'dumbing down' or has technology become so advanced that it has simply dislocated from the general public, no one cares how something works as long as it does?
Keith.

Wasn't old enough 50 years ago to know. It seems to me, while some small part of these tweaky kinds of things were around previously, it all took off on an exponential expansion with the introduction of CD. Was that a coincidence? I tend to think so, but maybe not. If not was it something about CD in particular or was it CD being a manifestation of many things finally coming together? No way to know for sure I suppose.

Perhaps before CD there was more of a physical connection with sound gear. You could see LP and reel and cassette tape. Whether you fully understood everything or not that sort of put a box around how people thought about it. A physical box in their mind. With CD, you had this magic thing, that almost no one understood at all other than it was digital and it has a laser inside and it worked and it was different. An open end of imagination without a box in their mind?

 

[Blizzard]

Can I smoke the insides of my grounding boxes then? Maybe that's the best way to hear the improvements?!

Works best when you get your wife to smack you in the head with a cast iron frying pan a few times first I find.

 

[Purite Audio]

Wasn't old enough 50 years ago to know. It seems to me, while some small part of these tweaky kinds of things were around previously, it all took off on an exponential expansion with the introduction of CD. Was that a coincidence? I tend to think so, but maybe not. If not was it something about CD in particular or was it CD being a manifestation of many things finally coming together? No way to know for sure I suppose.

Perhaps before CD there was more of a physical connection with sound gear. You could see LP and reel and cassette tape. Whether you fully understood everything or not that sort of put a box around how people thought about it. A physical box in their mind. With CD, you had this magic thing, that almost no one understood at all other than it was digital and it has a laser inside and it worked and it was different. An open end of imagination without a box in their mind?

Yes perhaps you are right analogue sources required a certain degree of knowledge and technical ability, I believe that the interest in DIY was also much greater in previous eras.
Keith.

 

[jkeny]

Its not one sided, its an obvious conclusion. I say the same thing about the now apparent necessity of USB "improvers". Whats wrong with your DAC that makes it necessary?

Entrail OMG thats funny, auto correct for once substituted an appropriate word It wasnt deliberate, but I can see why some would say it is indeed full of .....

Yes, it's the first auto correct Freudian slip, I've seen - good one

Its not about marketing. Considering that you have extolled the virtues of "USB Improvers" such as the regen and you are apparently an electronics (DAC) designer, I am somewhat shocked you havent looked at the Intona internal picture on the thread and understood what it is doing and why that has the potential to be beneficial in some circumstances. Or indeed the fact that, over and above this, it will also do a similar thing to the regen.

Oh, I have looked at the Intona pics & furthermore have heard an Intona. It is not designed for audio use & therefore has certain weaknesses that wouldn't exist if it had been designed with audio in mind. It does make me wonder what you mean by "competently engineered" because I always assumed engineering was a discipline that had end functionality specification in it's design goal. So can you tell us what the Intona's design goal was & what aspects of the design are specific to this goal. Furthermore, can you tell us why it has weaknesses as an audio designed product that some simple engineering would have fixed? You attempt to criticise me with the words "shocked you haven't looked at the Intona internal picture on the thread and understood what it is doing" & yet you display a lack of a comprehensive understanding of the product & it's design suitability for audio use.

Why? I agree why would you? Hence why I said "if its actually needed in your system".

But according to your claims, if it's needed in your system, then a stout ground wire will suffice - so I still don't see any consistency in your logic

Why do you predict that I wont measure the device? Is that a challenge?

You have obviously had a sense of humor bypass today. Oh well.

I'm always open to a good laugh but I didn't see anything humorous, apart from the auto-correct slip above

I dont feel the need to demonstrate anything, I dont need to test if a short piece of wire will work better than a box full of unidentified granular material at connecting equipment earths together.

Sure, I understand that you don't need to demonstrate anything but you are making claims that it if the Entreq has an effect, then a piece of grounding wire will do the same.

 

[spazmatron]

Yes perhaps you are right analogue sources required a certain degree of knowledge and technical ability, I believe that the interest in DIY was also much greater in previous eras.
Keith.

A constant theme with technology is the increasing distance between hardware and the end user via the evolution of chosen interface.

When I was 7 I had a bbc micro 32 k . I used to hack into games and helped program with older family members... Then when I was older I used dos 6, i could manage memory and extended memory. I had more control...I hated widows 3.11 though used to short key if I did use it. Then 95 came out which ran off dos 7 but I did not like it. Levels of removal....

Now I don't program at all, I know nothing about modern computing.

 

[Blizzard]

Yes perhaps you are right analogue sources required a certain degree of knowledge and technical ability, I believe that the interest in DIY was also much greater in previous eras.
Keith.

Yes it is quite fascinating how only some aspects of DIY are considered "prestigious" yet others are just for the dirtbags. Like the aspects that allow you to obtain superior sound. Those are often frowned upon.

 

[Billy Shears]

Anyone? No. I am not there to vouch for that. Maybe they changed the volume, or something else and did hear a difference.

I am here to say if we change one loudspeaker for another, we can all be sure that differences reported are valid. At the other extreme are devices like this. These are the realities of the situation. I didn't make them that way. I am reporting them as such .


I haven't made up my mind. I am expressing what I can tell from analyzing it; you all are telling what you can tell from hearing it. Two different approaches bringing data to the table.

My question for you is this: if I brought my water hose inside and hooked it up to my system and it sounded better to me, what then?


My doctor can examine me and tell me I have an infection in my throat without experiencing it himself. He could be wrong but years of experience says he is more right than I would be examining a patient. Same here. I am bringing knowledge of electronics and can line up as many designers as you like to vouch for the same. Indeed for every person that says this sound better, I can get you two engineers who would say that is not possible. I don't understand any conclusion that ignores what I just said.

Amir if you bring your water hose inside and it sounds consistently better why would you not want to leave that in your system if sound is all that matters to you? On the magnitude of unlikelyness the waterhose is is factor billion higher then "cleaning up the groundplane" of your component. So basing an argument purely on what can and can't be, acording to what you (or I ) think you know just does not cut it for me..

 

[spazmatron]

Amir if you bring your water hose inside and it sounds consistently better why would you not want to leave that in your system if sound is all that matters to you? On the magnitude of unlikelyness the waterhose is is factor billion higher then "cleaning up the groundplane" of your component. So basing an argument purely on what can and can't be, acording to what you (or I ) think you know just does not cut it for me..

I use my water hoes to clean my ground plain at least biannually..

 

[BE718]

Yes, it's the first auto correct Freudian slip, I've seen - good one

Oh, I have looked at the Intona pics & furthermore have heard an Intona. It is not designed for audio use & therefore has certain weaknesses that wouldn't exist if it had been designed with audio in mind

I'm always open to a good laugh but I didn't see any, apart from the auto-correct above

Sure, I understand that you don't need to demonstrate anything but you are making claims that it if the Entreq has an effect, then a piece of grounding wire will do the same.

What weaknesses? Audio has nothing to do with USB data transfer. So if it isolates the PC from the DAC and cleans up the USB eye pattern whats it not doing? The regen doesnt isolate, in fact it creates a ground issue. I suggest you read the following (post 6) to understand what the Intona does.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-USB-isolator!&p=362795&viewfull=1#post362795


Oh I think people connecting boxes of kitty litter to their hifis is pretty comical.

You have misundertood. I havent made any claims. If you look at what I have said it was "if you feel the need to connect your equiment grounds together"...................then yes a cheap bit of ordinary cable IS going to do a better job.

 

[Billy Shears]

I use my water hoes to clean my ground plain at least biannually..

Try using the waterhose to clean your ears. It will improve the sound of your system even more !

 

[Purite Audio]

Yes it is quite fascinating how only some aspects of DIY are considered "prestigious" yet others are just for the dirtbags. Like the aspects that allow you to obtain superior sound. Those are often frowned upon.

High fidelity reproduction used to be about striving for higher and higher fidelity, Williamson, Leek ,Rdfrod etc producing amplifiers with lower and lower distortion, but it appears to me that much of the high end today just repackages existing technology in larger and larger aluminium boxes, there are very few really innovative designers around, perhaps it was always thus.
Keith.

 

[Blizzard]

High fidelity reproduction used to be about striving for higher and higher fidelity, Williamson, Leek ,Rdfrod etc producing amplifiers with lower and lower distortion, but it appears to me that much of the high end today just repackages existing technology in larger and larger aluminium boxes, there are very few really innovative designers around, perhaps it was always thus.
Keith.

But when we reached the pinnacle, we realized that isn't what most want. So now to move 1 step ahead we must move 3 steps back.

 

[Barry2013]

To the best of my knowledge no one has yet been able to produce a generally acceptable scientific explanation as to how and why different interconnect and speaker cables affect the sound and people on this forum have from time to time maintained that expensive cables cannot affect the sound. The vast majority of audio enthusiasts have found that they do and those who have argued to the contrary find little support.
That does seem to be generally accepted and not to attract the same controversy as Entreq and Tripoint grounding.
I would be interested to hear Geardaddy and BE718's views on that.

In the above post I questioned why it was acceptable to judge cables on the basis of listening experience but not to do the same for Entreq/Tripont boxes and nobody has responded to that.
With the exception of impedance values and the sensitivity of some amplifier designs I am not aware of scientific measurements of cables being a factor in evaluations of cables but I am happy to be corrected if that is not the case.
MIT and Tara Labs employ boxes which they claim improve the sound quality of their expensive cables and although I have never tried them I am aware that they have a very good reputation and have been well reviewed. Again I am not aware of anybody questioning their science in the way that Entreq's is being questioned and yet the purpose is the same namely signal grounding. Can anybody explain that?
As noted above Entreq's claimed operation is signal grounding not mains grounding. The use of the term grounding may explain some of the hostility directed at Entreq and it being judged against a technical basis of mains grounding which is and obviously has been very important for safety reasons amongst others. But is that the correct basis for evaluating signal grounding and which as I say has not been questioned in the case of MIT and Tara Labs.
If the technical critics of Entreq make no similar criticisms of MIT and Tara Labs what should we conclude?
It maybe that the term grounding is part of the problem and that if one looked at it from a filtration point of view that perspective might provide a more accessible technical basis for looking at Entreq.
Over to you BE718

 

[Purite Audio]

In the above post I questioned why it was acceptable to judge cables on the basis of listening experience but not to do the same for Entreq/Tripont boxes and nobody has responded to that.
With the exception of impedance values and the sensitivity of some amplifier designs I am not aware of scientific measurements of cables being a factor in evaluations of cables but I am happy to be corrected if that is not the case.
MIT and Tara Labs employ boxes which they claim improve the sound quality of their expensive cables and although I have never tried them I am aware that they have a very good reputation and have been well reviewed. Again I am not aware of anybody questioning their science in the way that Entreq's is being questioned and yet the purpose is the same namely signal grounding. Can anybody explain that?
As noted above Entreq's claimed operation is signal grounding not mains grounding. The use of the term grounding may explain some of the hostility directed at Entreq and it being judged against a technical basis of mains grounding which is and obviously has been very important for safety reasons amongst others. But is that the correct basis for evaluating signal grounding and which as I say has not been questioned in the case of MIT and Tara Labs.
If the technical critics of Entreq make no similar criticisms of MIT and Tara Labs what should we conclude?
It maybe that the term grounding is part of the problem and that if one looked at it from a filtration point of view that perspective might provide a more accessible technical basis for looking at Entreq.
Over to you BE718

Barry I have answered your question already, cables can sound different, if you hugely increase for example the capacitance of the cable then the sound will be altered, that is well known and understood, placing a resistor in a metal box will also affect the sound.
The question you should be asking is why would a manufacturer alter the normal electrical parameters to make their cable sound different.
Keith.

 

[amirm]

Amir if you bring your water hose inside and it sounds consistently better why would you not want to leave that in your system if sound is all that matters to you?

I was not asking a question about me. I was asking if I shared that experience, would there be any degree of incredulity on your behalf?

 

[Barry2013]

Barry I have answered your question already, cables can sound different, if you hugely increase for example the capacitance of the cable then the sound will be altered, that is well known and understood, placing a resistor in a metal box will also affect the sound.
The question you should be asking is why would a manufacturer alter the normal electrical parameters to make their cable sound different.
Keith.

So why do cables with similar capacitance sound different?
And what about the MIT and Tara Lab cables and boxes?