Entreq Tellus grounding,in england

[Fiddle Faddle]

Fiddle,

Its not a poor way to do it. You said the recordings were identical.

No, I never said that. I said they were recorded using the same source material using precisely the same equipment and using precisely the same process. The only difference being the presence of the box or lack thereof. I am sure even if you had a professional open reel recorder as the source and played back a newly recorded tape, there would be tiny differences in statistical measurements. And as I keep saying time and time again, I have compared these files to the original source material and the Entreq file is closer. There are only so many times I can say this.

Look, I knew we were never going to change your mind or way of thinking the very first time you contributed to the thread. I am merely trying to point out that in the same way you believe everything I am doing or presenting is flawed, I believe exactly the same applies to your own methodologies and conclusions. You seem to think that your point of view is absolute and irrefutable. I am sorry but it isn't.

As for the listening tests, I honestly am not surprised that people who live by measurements are not hearing a difference. Sorry, but this no has to bring into question one's listening skills if one cannot hear differences between them. Level adjusted or not. As a highly experienced classical listener, there is a significant difference between these files.

Can I ask why you and others completely and utterly dismiss the subjective listening impressions of myself and others, yet you are happy to provide your own subjective listening opinion to reinforce your "measurement" view? That seems extremely hypocritical to me.

 

[Blizzard]

No, I never said that. I said they were recorded using the same source material using precisely the same equipment and using precisely the same process. The only difference being the presence of the box or lack thereof. I am sure even if you had a professional open reel recorder as the source and played back a newly recorded tape, there would be tiny differences in statistical measurements. And as I keep saying time and time again, I have compared these files to the original source material and the Entreq file is closer. There are only so many times I can say this.

Look, I knew we were never going to change your mind or way of thinking the very first time you contributed to the thread. I am merely trying to point out that in the same way you believe everything I am doing or presenting is flawed, I believe exactly the same applies to your own methodologies and conclusions. You seem to think that your point of view is absolute and irrefutable. I am sorry but it isn't.

As for the listening tests, I honestly am not surprised that people who live by measurements are not hearing a difference. Sorry, but this no has to bring into question one's listening skills if one cannot hear differences between them. Level adjusted or not. As a highly experienced classical listener, there is a significant difference between these files.

Can I ask why you and others completely and utterly dismiss the subjective listening impressions of myself and others, yet you are happy to provide your own subjective listening opinion to reinforce your "measurement" view? That seems extremely hypocritical to me.

You should use something more consistent as a source, like some digital tracks from the analog outs of a well built SS DAC.

 

[Purite Audio]

There's the answer BE and ELS, your listening skills are simply not up to it!
Keith.

 

[BE718]

No, I never said that. I said they were recorded using the same source material using precisely the same equipment and using precisely the same process. The only difference being the presence of the box or lack thereof. I am sure even if you had a professional open reel recorder as the source and played back a newly recorded tape, there would be tiny differences in statistical measurements. And as I keep saying time and time again, I have compared these files to the original source material and the Entreq file is closer. There are only so many times I can say this.

Look, I knew we were never going to change your mind or way of thinking the very first time you contributed to the thread. I am merely trying to point out that in the same way you believe everything I am doing or presenting is flawed, I believe exactly the same applies to your own methodologies and conclusions. You seem to think that your point of view is absolute and irrefutable. I am sorry but it isn't.

As for the listening tests, I honestly am not surprised that people who live by measurements are not hearing a difference. Sorry, but this no has to bring into question one's listening skills if one cannot hear differences between them. Level adjusted or not. As a highly experienced classical listener, there is a significant difference between these files.

Can I ask why you and others completely and utterly dismiss the subjective listening impressions of myself and others, yet you are happy to provide your own subjective listening opinion to reinforce your "measurement" view? That seems extremely hypocritical to me.

Fiddle, the test was flawed. Sorry. Your recordings don't prove anything and the audio quality was also very poor. If your aural abilities are so acute why haven't you noticed just how poor the audio quality is? Why would you use such a low resolution and poor sounding source to perform such a test?

You also have not addressed the point about your reason to ignore the variable and variation in analogue playback that you cite.

Well let's see how many people think there are significant differences, that of course are not accounted for by the difference in volume.

It's highly predictable that you have attacked my hearing abilities instead of accepting your test is flawed.

Regarding your subjective impressions, well I simply haven't heard what you claim and subjective opinions are easily influenced by many factors, including volume differences, placebo, expectation bias etc etc.

 

[BE718]

There's the answer BE and ELS, your listening skills are simply not up to it!
Keith.

What's your opinion on the recordings?

 

[YashN]

The files are not the same volume, you will perceive differences.

No entrail
View attachment 25683

with entrail
View attachment 25682

Entrail has slightly higher noise floor.

The proper observation is that many people perceive louder audio as 'better'. This isn't the case with me and neither is the louder file here (no Entreq, not 'Entrail') better for me. I find the volume discrepancy to be negligible at least focusing on the initial segment.

And by initial segment here I don't mean the lead-in of the LP but the music starting with a percussive sound (something like an orchestral drum), then a brass sound, then a shimmer of string sounds.

 

[YashN]

As for the listening tests, I honestly am not surprised that people who live by measurements are not hearing a difference.

How about instead:

1. Measure the wrong thing
2. Completely mess up the correlation of file and measurements

?

Because that's what we see here...

 

[YashN]

That's the question we want to answer. Discussing what may be broken elsewhere takes away from that.

Except knowing the source (and the mechanism by which it arises) of what the box is purported to help with greatly informs one's understanding of it.

Really, anything having to do with noise or grounding is a multi-component affair.

This issue here is linked to chassis grounding, and some people think chassis-grounding solves it, except in reality and in some systems, some of the issue still persists despite excellent chassis-grounding. (AFAIK)

And to really understand why SE systems are more likely to benefit from an Entreq solution, one has to really understand the benefits of balanced.

To dig further, there's an issue in XLR connections which also sheds more light in how things work in a multi-component system.

Some of the literature I found to be most interesting regarding all this is to be found online by Ott, Armstrong, Brown, Whitlock and Geddings (hope I spelled it right).

One can and should start by understanding properly what a return current is and how it flows.

 

[BE718]

The proper observation is that many people perceive louder audio as 'better'. This isn't the case with me and neither is the louder file here (no Entreq, not 'Entrail') better for me. I find the volume discrepancy to be negligible at least focusing on the initial segment.

And by initial segment here I don't mean the lead-in of the LP but the music starting with a percussive sound (something like an orchestral drum), then a brass sound, then a shimmer of string sounds.

No thats a generalisation. There seems to be no end of variation to what people subjectively perceive or prefer, you indicate this by your use of "many". The files are different and not a valid comparison. Fiddle reckons the analogue source is significantly variable. Its obviously poor quality. Why are you taking it seriously?

 

[BE718]

How about instead:

1. Measure the wrong thing
2. Completely mess up the correlation of file and measurements

?

Because that's what we see here...

We have measured a small identical section of background noise and drew no conclusion other than it was different. We measured the volume levels and found they were different. Subjectively both recordings are of poor quality and do not sound subjectively significantly different (apart from volume)

The conclusion is the files are different and not a valid comparison. Fiddle either did not take enough care when recording, or as he concludes, his analogue source suffers significant variables and variation. Someone else even pointed out a speed difference.

Whats your point?

 

[YashN]

Whats your point?

If it weren't apparent enough, measure the proper thing and read Fiddle Faddle's reply more carefully to understand why there could be differences in that specific lead-in you chose to measure.

Speed differences in a turntable system is nothing new either (for many systems especially those using belt drives).

 

[YashN]

Subjectively both recordings are of poor quality

This is meaningless unless you specifically mean the recording quality is interfering with your ability to hear the differences.

It didn't interfere with mine in my system.

 

[YashN]

No thats a generalisation.

Informed from observations in real listening tests, hence the ongoing loudness wars...

 

[BE718]

If it weren't apparent enough, measure the proper thing and read Fiddle Faddle's reply more carefully to understand why there could be differences in that specific lead-in you chose to measure.

Speed differences in a turntable system is nothing new either (for many systems especially those using belt drives).

Whats the proper thing??????


I suggest you ask yourself why there are allegedly differences on the lead in? The record hasnt changed, so you are confirming that the deck is inconsistent and variable as Fiddle suggested.

You are confirming that this is no good for making consistent comparisons.

As I said, comparison isnt valid.

Isnt that apparent enough? Thats the only conclusion I have drawn.


So what we have here is a wide range of variables, which you seem to acknowledge, however you insist on saying that the differences you hear are down to the entreq. Really?

 

[BE718]

This is meaningless unless you specifically mean the recording quality is interfering with your ability to hear the differences.

It didn't interfere with mine in my system.

Of course it has meaning. A poor resolution / quality of source is not a good source for comparing subtle differences, especially when the playback system is as variable as you seem to acknowledge it is.

 

[BE718]

Informed from observations in real listening tests, hence the ongoing loudness wars...

Which you acknowledged was a generalisation by your use of "many"

 

[jkeny]

Come on JK, then please explain what these weaknesses apparently are, just like I asked you to do in the previous post. Then we can debate those alleged weaknesses.

What evidence, what denials?

Oh, I love the irony - first you accuse me of not understanding the Intona & what it does "shocked you haven't looked at the Intona internal picture on the thread and understood what it is doing" - now you ask me for the details of it's design weaknesses. Design weaknesses that any self-respecting E'ee would recognise.

Let's apply the socratic method here for fostering critical thinking - first answer the question "was this device designed for audio"? Now go from there. But, an admonishment - you really should have worked this out for yourself, you know!

 

[BE718]

Oh, I love the irony - first you accuse me of not understanding the Intona & what it does "shocked you haven't looked at the Intona internal picture on the thread and understood what it is doing" - now you ask me for the details of it's design weaknesses. Design weaknesses that any self-respecting E'ee would recognise.

Let's apply the socratic method here for fostering critical thinking - first answer the question "was this device designed for audio"? Now go from there. But, an admonishment - you really should have worked this out for yourself, you know!

Thanks JK you have confirmed you dont know.

 

[spazmatron]

Thanks fiddle faddle for your attempts at measuring, I guess vinyl plays different every time so it's had to tell what's going on but I appreciate the ambition of trying to find answers. Of course doing something is better than arguing semantics, being a armchair critic. Your a standout member for me, really enjoy your posts

Any company that's making money off products that have little or no engineering merrit are going to come into opposition, rightly so. Better to make products you know and understand from a engineering point of view as opposed to just hoping and not having any solid technical base regardless of subjective perception.

Entreq can't tell you why thier products might bring positive subjective results, that's a bit wrong imo. They certainly don't ground anything, but who knows. I think vibration has something to do with it, the boxes seem to be more effective with absorbing materials under them. They also are certainly a risk from a rfi point? All that shielding and care only to then stick a bloody great big copper aerial outside your hifi lol.

 

[Purite Audio]

Oh, I love the irony - first you accuse me of not understanding the Intona & what it does "shocked you haven't looked at the Intona internal picture on the thread and understood what it is doing" - now you ask me for the details of it's design weaknesses. Design weaknesses that any self-respecting E'ee would recognise.

Let's apply the socratic method here for fostering critical thinking - first answer the question "was this device designed for audio"? Now go from there. But, an admonishment - you really should have worked this out for yourself, you know!

Are you really trying to compare Entreq and Intona, one is a properly engineered device that does exactly what is states, and the other a box filled with unspecified material and a bent coat hanger?
Start another thread fortune USB isolator in the measurement section of the forum .
Keith.