The files are not the same volume, you will perceive differences. I loaded them up in Audition. Here are the stats:-
No entrail
with entrail
FFT of a 0.1 second selection, 0.5 seconds prior to music start. Entrail has slightly higher noise floor.
Entreq Tellus grounding,in england
- Thread starter graystoke4
- Start date
- Status
The files are not the same volume, you will perceive differences. I loaded them up in Audition. Here are the stats:-
No entrail
with entrail
FFT of a 0.1 second selection, 0.5 seconds prior to music start. Entrail has slightly higher noise floor.
This topic came up because is is nice to know if the guys experiencing the perceived performance gains are using a fully balanced system or not. The USB implementation's are susceptible to ground noise as well if poorly implemented. Even if this box full of granulated graphite does indeed have a positive effect, this may be due to faults in the engineering of the audio gear to begin with. Without having a clue to how the internal circuitry of your gear is implemented in the first place, it's pretty hard to pinpoint why the perceived performance gains could be had to begin with.
My take on this will always be, if it's broke fix it, rather than use expensive external bandaids.
That's the question we want to answer. Discussing what may be broken elsewhere takes away from that.
So we're not considering the possibility that Mike L and the gang aren't completely imagining the positive effects from this equipment? This is exactly my take on this, and products like the REGEN. I'm not doubting these guys are hearing a difference. What it tells me is there's obviously some weak links in the engineering of the audio gear to begin with, if they are actually hearing a difference with the addition of these external tweaks. A well engineered product shouldn't need these devices to achieve peak performance.
It seems to me after a few months of being on forums, following all the tests, and what people say, that it doesn't matter if the measurements are better or worse when it comes to whether or not people will perceive them to sound subjectively better or not. What seems to matter most is whether or not the change (better or worse measurably) is perceived as more pleasant to the end user. It seems to me that the holy grail is simply undesirable for most. People would rather have a pretty painting on their wall painted by their favourite artist, rather than a photo taken with a Hasselblad H5D-200c 50mp camera under the perfect lighting conditions.
I guess you missed the point. The point was the photo will most likely be a more accurate capture of the original event.
With audio, sonic perfection isn't always what's desired. With video, it seems to be much easier for most to tell which TV has the best picture quality. The best performing TV will likely be easily recognized by most people. Here's an analogy I often use when people have a hard time believing how good audio can get. If we are standing beside a perfectly clean window I say to them "if I told you that was a TV would you believe me?" Of course the answer is no. Well that just goes to show how far we are from having perfect TV's. If we had perfect TV's. you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from looking out an actual clean window. And when we eventually get to that point, it will only take a short glance for most to recognize the quality. But audio is different. If we get to the same level with audio, most audiophiles will likely will think it's poor. This is simply because they are accustomed to coloration's which were purposely engineered into their favorite products. I think we are very close to being able to have an audio system at the level of this TV indistinguishable from a window today. But the problem is most people don't know what the recording is supposed to sound like in the first place. This is why it's great to get the opinions from studio engineers on the matter. Because they know what the original recording was supposed to sound like. But in the end with audio, it doesn't really matter. What matters is if the listener enjoys what they are hearing. No matter if the artist who designed the playback gear is a good painter or not.
And about the camera. I have been drooling over that for a while. And I realize a camera like that takes skills to operate. It's not a $200 point and shoot.
Last edited:
So if the listener enjoys what they are hearing and its all subjective .. why insist your version of the "naked" truth is the only thing that counts and you deride others.
Its ALL about taste.
Your theory is all flooby dust anyway as the environment (room) mangles all your specmanship to death
Accept the proposition that you are not the final arbiter of audio truth or what people like
As to Cameras.. even if you learn all the functions .. you might not have the eye .. havent got the eye..well you might as well get that $200 P&S
Its ALL about taste.
Your theory is all flooby dust anyway as the environment (room) mangles all your specmanship to death
Accept the proposition that you are not the final arbiter of audio truth or what people like
As to Cameras.. even if you learn all the functions .. you might not have the eye .. havent got the eye..well you might as well get that $200 P&S
Well it's one thing to hear 2 ways of doing things side by side and having a subjective preference. But closing your mind off to trying other ways that you could possibly enjoy better is another thing. There's some things that are universally recognized as sounding poor. Like if one was to compare a 128kbps MP3 file to a quad DSD file played back on a highly revealing high end system, they should be able to tell which one is better. Also I don't think the effects of jitter, are subjectively preferred by anyone either.
And as far as your theory on the room being the only thing that matters, why do you have such expensive speakers? Why don't you buy a pair of Bose 901's and a circa 1976 Kenwood receiver or something and just use the dirac, and room treatment to tune them up?
I've deliberately kept out of this discussion for a while because apart from being sick and tired of the terms "kitty litter" and placebo" being continually bandied about over and over again, it has inevitably trended towards objective measurement which in my opinion is fraught with too many caveats - at least outside of professional measuring laboratories using exceptionally expensive equipment. I subscribe to a couple of British audio monthly magazines and I love their equipment reviews because they both listen and measure. As distinctly opposed to measuring and not listening (let alone owning on a daily basis). Or listening and not measuring as is the case with me. But my excuse for not measuring is that I do not have formal tertiary qualifications in scientific measurement and I certainly don't own the incredibly expensive analytical equipment needed to make those measurements (unlike HiFi World and HiFi News and Record reviews where the people who do the measuring are highly respected world-wide, have the right equipment, experience and knowledge and produce consistent comparative results.
Even then, I only look at measurements out of interest and to see (if I have heard or own the component) if any of the measurements correlate to what I hear. Often they do but sometimes they don't. Just as an example, I don't find direct correlations between jitter numbers and subjective sound, though I definitely prefer in general the sound of components that exhibit low jitter (please let's not go there - I am just using that as an example of where I don't hear a correlation between measurements and what I hear). I also tend to wonder (as do some well-known - even famous - living engineers) whether we are still missing something (or some things) when we do measure.
But I want to address this noise "issue". Those two original test files were sourced from a 45 RPM LP that was itself remastered from a 1962 (so pre-Dolby A, tubed, fully analogue) recording on a 1/4 inch tape at 15 inches per second (probably made on a Studer but I am not sure). So the source material is going to have a lot of "analogue noise" to begin with. There is the noise from the original tape, the remastering chain and the LP itself. The two files were made on the 5th and 6th play of that particular LP. I am not sure which particular section those FFT spectrograms were derived from, but I do have to wonder how one is supposed to distinguish between the music content and the noise content. And even if it can distinguish between the two, what noise simply comes from the "analogue" side of things and how much comes from the "digital" side of things. It might be possible, for example, that "more noise" might not be "bad" because more noise could just as easily mean the defects in the original analogue chain were more faithfully captured with the Entreq connected than with it disconnected. Or it might not be of any consequence at all.
With that in mind (and because I was asked earlier but did not oblige), I have actually decided to go to the trouble of recording "silence" on the analogue input of the workstation, both with and without the Entreq connected. I have done these over the last 24 hours so the box had a full day sitting back in the system when the test was made. Since I am using a 10 second sample from each method, I did these at 24/96 instead of 24/48 as was the case earlier. That way, it is possible to get a better analysis of the noise spectrums and statistics (not that I honestly think they really mean much).
Now the only reason I went to the trouble of doing this and am posting the files/ results is that I don't what incorrect conclusions to be made from any measurements people decide to make. If we left it like it was, people might think the Entreq adds noise and is therefore "bad". However the test I have made over the last day show that it does not add any noise at all. Infact if you really want to be incredibly pedantic about it, the noise floor spectrogram was very slightly lower with the box connected (actually it was interestingly by the same amount that the music recording is lower in level by), but arguably not enough (in my opinion) to make it either statistically or musically (audibly) meaningful. I could have boasted that wow, the noise floor with the Entreq has an absolute peak more than -0.5 dB quieter in both left and right channels, but I honestly do not think such tiny changes at such low levels (we are talking over -100 dBA here) would in any way begin to even remotely account of the differences in sound I (and others as this thread demonstrates) hear when the boxes are used (or for those without he boxes, the differences in the actual music content between the two files).
Nevertheless, in the name of transparency, here are the results of testing "silence" at the analogue input with the recording gain fader set to maximum. So you are basically looking at the analogue noise floor of my recording system (yes, it is not in the professional league and I never claimed it was). So if you think back to those two sample recordings, they would have been recorded "over" (or in addition to) the noise floors / spectrograms you see below. The spectrograms cover the level range -120 dBFS to -150 dBFS and DC to 48,000 KHz.
1. Statistics without the Entreq box connected:
2. Statistics with Entreq box connected:
3. Spectrogram without the Entreq box connected:
4. Spectrogram with Entreq box connected:
In my opinion there is no appreciable difference that accounts for the difference in sound if we are just analysing noise floors. The "improvement" if you can even call it that with the box connected is arguably insignificant.
As for the difference in the levels, yes, I did notice that. I could have "cheated" and raised the level about 0.3 or 0.4 dB (but then that would have made the loudest peak higher on the Entreq recording than on the recording without it). But I wanted to make sure that each file was made using precisely the same process and that the only variable was the box (OK, and yes, the 5th and 6th play of the LP). As for the difference, even if you do increase the levels to look "the same", the two files still sound different and the one with the box connected sounds better (at least to me and it sounds closer to the original analogue feed as well). I am well aware of how differences in level can result in a bias one way or another but in this case the files still sound different no matter what you try to do with them.
I might opine that the level differences may even equate to the reduced noise levels I noted in the "silent" recordings referred to above (since the differences in level are actually almost identical) but again, since I am not a measurement person per se, I prefer not to speculate.
My main reason as I say for making this post is to dispel the notion that the box adds noise or in whatever way makes the sound worse as opposed to better. At least in my own experience, if a recording is "noisier" with the Entreq box connected, that is more likely a superior rendition of the flaws (whatever they may be) inherent in the original source material. Unfortunately my setup is only geared to make analogue transcriptions so I am unable to feed it with a perfect pure sine tone into the analogue input for example. I honestly think in the end if these boxes are to be measured, it is beyond the scope of general internet and really needs to be done under professional laboratory conditions with appropriate equipment. Even then, I still remain suspicious that measurement circa 2016 does not tell the whole story about audio. If it did, what I hear and measurements should really correspond with each other, but they don't. That is why I keep out of measurement forums and do not frequent those particular audio sites where members do not listen and only measure!
Link to "silence" files:
https://www.sendspace.com/file/gxxbk9
Even then, I only look at measurements out of interest and to see (if I have heard or own the component) if any of the measurements correlate to what I hear. Often they do but sometimes they don't. Just as an example, I don't find direct correlations between jitter numbers and subjective sound, though I definitely prefer in general the sound of components that exhibit low jitter (please let's not go there - I am just using that as an example of where I don't hear a correlation between measurements and what I hear). I also tend to wonder (as do some well-known - even famous - living engineers) whether we are still missing something (or some things) when we do measure.
But I want to address this noise "issue". Those two original test files were sourced from a 45 RPM LP that was itself remastered from a 1962 (so pre-Dolby A, tubed, fully analogue) recording on a 1/4 inch tape at 15 inches per second (probably made on a Studer but I am not sure). So the source material is going to have a lot of "analogue noise" to begin with. There is the noise from the original tape, the remastering chain and the LP itself. The two files were made on the 5th and 6th play of that particular LP. I am not sure which particular section those FFT spectrograms were derived from, but I do have to wonder how one is supposed to distinguish between the music content and the noise content. And even if it can distinguish between the two, what noise simply comes from the "analogue" side of things and how much comes from the "digital" side of things. It might be possible, for example, that "more noise" might not be "bad" because more noise could just as easily mean the defects in the original analogue chain were more faithfully captured with the Entreq connected than with it disconnected. Or it might not be of any consequence at all.
With that in mind (and because I was asked earlier but did not oblige), I have actually decided to go to the trouble of recording "silence" on the analogue input of the workstation, both with and without the Entreq connected. I have done these over the last 24 hours so the box had a full day sitting back in the system when the test was made. Since I am using a 10 second sample from each method, I did these at 24/96 instead of 24/48 as was the case earlier. That way, it is possible to get a better analysis of the noise spectrums and statistics (not that I honestly think they really mean much).
Now the only reason I went to the trouble of doing this and am posting the files/ results is that I don't what incorrect conclusions to be made from any measurements people decide to make. If we left it like it was, people might think the Entreq adds noise and is therefore "bad". However the test I have made over the last day show that it does not add any noise at all. Infact if you really want to be incredibly pedantic about it, the noise floor spectrogram was very slightly lower with the box connected (actually it was interestingly by the same amount that the music recording is lower in level by), but arguably not enough (in my opinion) to make it either statistically or musically (audibly) meaningful. I could have boasted that wow, the noise floor with the Entreq has an absolute peak more than -0.5 dB quieter in both left and right channels, but I honestly do not think such tiny changes at such low levels (we are talking over -100 dBA here) would in any way begin to even remotely account of the differences in sound I (and others as this thread demonstrates) hear when the boxes are used (or for those without he boxes, the differences in the actual music content between the two files).
Nevertheless, in the name of transparency, here are the results of testing "silence" at the analogue input with the recording gain fader set to maximum. So you are basically looking at the analogue noise floor of my recording system (yes, it is not in the professional league and I never claimed it was). So if you think back to those two sample recordings, they would have been recorded "over" (or in addition to) the noise floors / spectrograms you see below. The spectrograms cover the level range -120 dBFS to -150 dBFS and DC to 48,000 KHz.
1. Statistics without the Entreq box connected:
2. Statistics with Entreq box connected:
3. Spectrogram without the Entreq box connected:
4. Spectrogram with Entreq box connected:
In my opinion there is no appreciable difference that accounts for the difference in sound if we are just analysing noise floors. The "improvement" if you can even call it that with the box connected is arguably insignificant.
As for the difference in the levels, yes, I did notice that. I could have "cheated" and raised the level about 0.3 or 0.4 dB (but then that would have made the loudest peak higher on the Entreq recording than on the recording without it). But I wanted to make sure that each file was made using precisely the same process and that the only variable was the box (OK, and yes, the 5th and 6th play of the LP). As for the difference, even if you do increase the levels to look "the same", the two files still sound different and the one with the box connected sounds better (at least to me and it sounds closer to the original analogue feed as well). I am well aware of how differences in level can result in a bias one way or another but in this case the files still sound different no matter what you try to do with them.
I might opine that the level differences may even equate to the reduced noise levels I noted in the "silent" recordings referred to above (since the differences in level are actually almost identical) but again, since I am not a measurement person per se, I prefer not to speculate.
My main reason as I say for making this post is to dispel the notion that the box adds noise or in whatever way makes the sound worse as opposed to better. At least in my own experience, if a recording is "noisier" with the Entreq box connected, that is more likely a superior rendition of the flaws (whatever they may be) inherent in the original source material. Unfortunately my setup is only geared to make analogue transcriptions so I am unable to feed it with a perfect pure sine tone into the analogue input for example. I honestly think in the end if these boxes are to be measured, it is beyond the scope of general internet and really needs to be done under professional laboratory conditions with appropriate equipment. Even then, I still remain suspicious that measurement circa 2016 does not tell the whole story about audio. If it did, what I hear and measurements should really correspond with each other, but they don't. That is why I keep out of measurement forums and do not frequent those particular audio sites where members do not listen and only measure!
Link to "silence" files:
https://www.sendspace.com/file/gxxbk9
Last edited:
Alan Hi ,re these Fiddle's files ?The files are not the same volume, you will perceive differences. I loaded them up in Audition. Here are the stats:-
No entrail
View attachment 25683
with entrail
FFT of a 0.1 second selection, 0.5 seconds prior to music start. Entrail has slightly higher noise floor.
View attachment 25684
The noise floor is higher, even without signal so the Entreq is having some effect in Fiddle's system ,even if higher noise floor is usually considered deleterious?
Vb Keith.
Fiddle, I am sorry but you have completely missed the point.
The files were presented as some kind of proof that the entreq improves the SQ. the files are supposed to have been identically recorded. They weren't.
Volume differences affect people's perception. This is very well known. As such they are not valid for comparison.
Regarding the noise FFT an identical section was taken from the silence prior to the music start. The entreq one was noisier. this was even though the entreq recording was overall quieter.
Also, chill out and re-find your sense of humour
The files were presented as some kind of proof that the entreq improves the SQ. the files are supposed to have been identically recorded. They weren't.
Volume differences affect people's perception. This is very well known. As such they are not valid for comparison.
Regarding the noise FFT an identical section was taken from the silence prior to the music start. The entreq one was noisier. this was even though the entreq recording was overall quieter.
Also, chill out and re-find your sense of humour
I believe so, the ones that are linked to further up the thread. I cant answer that, all I know is the recordings are different volumes. A more controlled test would need to be performed.
IO am actually going to go and listen to the files now.
Thank you ,yes Fiddle look on the bright side, at least perhaps the box is doing something.
Could the box be acting as an aerial, if one used many 'grounding' boxes would the noise be cumulative?
Keith
Could the box be acting as an aerial, if one used many 'grounding' boxes would the noise be cumulative?
Keith
Fiddle, I am sorry but you have completely missed the point.
The files were presented as some kind of proof that the entreq improves the SQ. the files are supposed to have been identically recorded. They weren't.
Volume differences affect people's perception. This is very well known. As such they are not valid for comparison.
Regarding the noise FFT an identical section was taken from the silence prior to the music start. The entreq one was noisier. this was even though the entreq recording was overall quieter.
Also, chill out and re-find your sense of humour
No, I got your points exactly which is why I made the additional post. I suspected you took them from the beginning of the recording and in my opinion that is a very poor way to do it. You are emphasising the mechanical variabilities inherent in an analogue playback process and what is worse, that is from the LP lead-in which always as often as not gets noisier with each and every play. That was one of the main reasons I did the silence test that you actually asked for yourself. But now I have done that and demonstrated that the box does not actually add noise, you now go on a different tack.
You have done no actual analysis of the music at all - you've just analysed the noise spectrum of an LP lead-in groove where rumble and other variable mechanical factors are emphasised over everything else.
You also must have missed my point about the levels. Please re-read what I said. You can level match them perfectly. If people want to listen to level matched files, I will change them myself but the results will still be exactly the same. It makes no differences. They still sound different. And far more importantly, the Entreq one sounds closer to the original analogue feed than the one without the Entreq. The level differences could be caused by a number of things but they are not caused by the box. They could be caused by the tiny amount of additional wear between play # 5 and play # 6 and it could also have something to do with the tiny reductions in the overall "digital" side of the noise floor as shown by my 96 KHz silent files. And as I have also said, the "quieter" Entreq file has a louder maximum peak than the one without.
As for evidence, the whole point was for people to actually use their ears rather than using amateur or semi-pro software based measuring tools. This is why I am not a measurement person and never will be. Maybe one day when measurements equate to what I hear, I will be.
In all honestly I know of no way you could formally measure these files and come to any musically valid conclusion which is why any measurements made are as invalid from my perspective as actual listening is from your perspective. If you don't have a particular preference to which file sounds "best then you really have to compare them to the original analogue source to see that the one with the box is closer in sound to the one without the box. I was able to do that, but you are not interested in anyone's feedback from listening or the experience of Entreq owners, so really, this entire argument (and indeed the whole thread) has become completely pointless. If people are just going to measure all day and not ever bother listening, what is the point of audio (or music) at all?
Last edited:
OK, I have had a very quick listen - and I will emphasise it was quick so give some more time to draw final conclusions.
Basically I think the audio quality is nothing to write home about, it sounds like vinyl alright, something about the high frequencies I can never get on with, its pretty poor IMO. The volume difference is noticeable but other than that I find no significant difference between the two.
I will listen some more when I get time later.
Last edited:
Fiddle,
Its not a poor way to do it. You said the recordings were identical. They are not. This just helps show they are not. They were exactly the same point in the recording. I am making drawing no conclusion as to why, but I would suggest that LP background noise is a long way above any noise floor affects the entreq may or may not make.
So what you are saying is that there are significant variables and variation in analogue replay. OK, so why are you claiming that these two files prove in any way that the entreq is doing anything useful? Why isnt any difference you percieve due to the variables you just cited?
Again you have missed the point, the recording is different, changing the levels afterwards is not valid.
Regarding listening, yes I have. See above.
Its not a poor way to do it. You said the recordings were identical. They are not. This just helps show they are not. They were exactly the same point in the recording. I am making drawing no conclusion as to why, but I would suggest that LP background noise is a long way above any noise floor affects the entreq may or may not make.
So what you are saying is that there are significant variables and variation in analogue replay. OK, so why are you claiming that these two files prove in any way that the entreq is doing anything useful? Why isnt any difference you percieve due to the variables you just cited?
Again you have missed the point, the recording is different, changing the levels afterwards is not valid.
Regarding listening, yes I have. See above.
Or the components could be chosen to save costs as well. Or simply because the designer didn't know what he was doing. Or could be just a snake oil money grab. All kinds of possibilities. What I've found at my place, I've had a 100% success rate at dispelling audio myths when I actually have the people here to demonstrate the experiments I try in person. Far more effective than talking about them on the forum. However even on the forums I have had a 100% satisfaction rate from those who have tried my recommendations. So based on the results I've obtained so far, I have no reason to believe I have a poor sense of judgement in this area.
If I adjust for the actual start of music the with Entreq version is 1/3 of a % slower. Borderline audible with sine waves at higher frequencies. There is little there above 5 khz however so probably not anything you could hear. And probably not audible with music at that speed difference anyway.
When I returned home I adjusted the Entreq file by .4 db on the left channel and .3 db on the right channel as that is what two different softwares show for the loudness difference. The Entreq was quieter, I had that reversed by mistake in my earlier post.
Listened through this about 5 times. I don't hear any difference. Listened 3 more times over some headphones, and again no difference.
I also must say this isn't a terrific sounding LP. I am assuming it likely is the LP responsible for it. Certainly not a showcase for what analog LP is capable of sounding like.
When I returned home I adjusted the Entreq file by .4 db on the left channel and .3 db on the right channel as that is what two different softwares show for the loudness difference. The Entreq was quieter, I had that reversed by mistake in my earlier post.
Listened through this about 5 times. I don't hear any difference. Listened 3 more times over some headphones, and again no difference.
I also must say this isn't a terrific sounding LP. I am assuming it likely is the LP responsible for it. Certainly not a showcase for what analog LP is capable of sounding like.
- Status
Similar threads
