Entreq Tellus grounding,in england

[esldude]

Where multiple devices wired to the same Entreq? If so, then the change we have seen may have nothing to do with Entreq but change in how equipment was grounded.

So obvious it did not need stating. The only measures we had on hand were no Entreq and with Entreq. Between those there were differences. As he had the Minimus I suspect it was only one component ( did he mention somewhere he was using an unused SPDIF socket to connect?).

 

[BE718]

No, only you, BE718, because you are thoroughly ignorant of the engineering principles come up with the pseudo-explanation of 'magic'.

Quod Erad Demonstrandum, only you and no one else came up with 'magic'.

it all had to do with proper Engineering, but you're ignorant of it, that's all. The proof is in the pudding.

Sorry missed this one. Its a shame some feel this is necessary.

 

[amirm]

This thread has become much more constructive. Anyone who takes it back to bickering may get sanctioned. Please discuss the topic and not your counterpart.

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

I really have to clear one thing up. I have tried to clear it up several times in this thread before, apparently to no avail. My test system does not have a grounding issue, nor is it broken. How many times must I say this? The reason for those spikes in the tests is because I did not own any cable capable of connecting the two soundcards the way I needed to. The second card in that machine (the one I was using for playback purposes) normally serves only to receive digital inputs via it's SPDIF connection. That is it's sole purpose in life. This it performs perfectly as intended. I can show you an input file of 24 bit silence and an output file and they are precisely identical. It serves it's purpose as I intended and consistent in terms of how I designed the whole machine from the very beginning.

In order to do the tests I had to completely reconfigure everything and for the first time in the machine's life, use that second card as an analogue playback card instead of a digital recording card. I had no cable of any sort at hand to connect it. None at all. Since I felt that the whole purpose of doing the tests was to establish (a) the box does something (b) when the box is connected, the output from a DAC sounds more like the original source file when the box is connected and (c) what matters is a relative improvement, not an absolute one, I decided to use whatever I happened to have at hand sitting in my cupboard. I am self-funded and retired and did not want to spend money on a cable that was only going to used for one test and which wasn't going to make any difference in meeting those three criteria above. That money buys me a couple of lunches. So the cable I used was a truly horrible thing, about 1mm in diameter and used on a cheap $50 portable player to extend the headphone jack. Then above that, I still had to add an adapter. Infact, if anything, these cables are even used as antennas when plugged into the headphone jack of a DAP!

I did build the cable I mentioned yesterday and tested it last night in lieu of the "cable" I used before. Not surprisingly, now the worst of the noise is now at precisely -114 dB between DC and 24,000 Hz (which is the exact, quoted S/N ratio of that model card - look it up if you do not believe me) with most of the noise actually quite some way below that. Remember too that I am forced to measure two lots of noise too - both cards make noise, not just one, so had I connected it up to an analyser, it might have even been quieter again than simply recording the output and analysing the recording. And the cable I made is still just a very simple one using basis $2 per meter shielded cable and a couple of $5 plugs I soldered onto the ends. But obviously it seems to meet a "minimum" shielded audio standard but I still don't believe it would be as "quiet" as the high quality interconnects I am using in the machine in it's "normal" configuration.

So it is as I have been trying to say over and over again. Please stop trying to remotely diagnose non-existent issues. This is another reason I have had enough of this. Too many people here think they know everything, are sure they know the reason for things, are trying to "fix" problems that I know do not inherently exist in the machine and have made incorrect diagnoses that I know are based on flawed thinking and reasoning. It anyone had bothered to read what I said just once and actually considered that I might have been correct, then we would not going on and on about a machine problem which I knew was a cable problem. There is nothing wrong with the system. It was a problem with using the only connector I happened to have on hand without going out and spending my own money on something just for a single experiment.

But even with the new cable, nothing changes in terms of relative outcomes. The relative results (noise and sonics) are still the same as they were before except that of course those interference spikes are not a factor any more. But I have still decided to take no further part because I still believe some people here have an "agenda" as opposed to a desire to measure a product with an unbiased, open mind. For example, Amir seems to be the only one so far in the measurement camp who has consistently adopted a completely unbiased, open-minded approach and the only things he and I significantly differ on are the validity of blind testing. Perhaps if the terms "overpriced", "kitty litter", "bent bits of wire" and interjected, random snide remarks had not been used more times than I can count by certain other parties, I might have thought otherwise. Perhaps if any of these people had actually owned the gear, seen the gear, used the gear themselves or - perish the thought - actually listened to it (but again, with an open mind?), I also might have given consideration to thinking otherwise.

Yes, I will admit in hindsight it was a mistake on my part to use that first cable. If I could go back in time I would have gone to the electronics store first and bought some shielded cable and made my own like I did yesterday. In the end, if people really wanted high quality absolute data, I would never have bothered and would instead told them to contact Entreq and obtain their top of the top products and then use the best measuring balanced DAC they could get their hands on. And to not record the DAC output but to measure it with a proper noise analyser. I think this is the only way forward but it is one for the measurement forum and not for the general forum.

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

Where multiple devices wired to the same Entreq?

I suppose the answer is yes and no if you go by the instructions Entreq supply. If for example, someone owns a CD player with both analogue outs and you connect that SPDIF to the Entreq, then there is going to be an electrical continuity with all grounded points in any components and the Entreq box. Basically every RCA in that system (digital or otherwise) will have continuity with the terminal on the Entreq box. So you could say "yes" because they are all now wired in together but if you go by the Entreq philosophy, then the answer would be a strict "no" because Entreq considers a product "grounded" (by their definition) only if that component actually directly (i.e physically, not just electrically) connects via an actual Entreq cable specific to that component to an actual Entreq box terminal. So, from Entreq's point of view and going by they way they intend their products to be used, unless an actual component is physically connected by an actual cable directly to a box terminal, it is not considered "grounded" (at least by Entreq).

And if I may offer my listening experiences again, in my loungeroom system I currently just have the amplifier connected to one box. If, however, I add another cable and another box to also connect the CD player, the sound further improves (by the same degree as adding the first box). Yet with just one box, the CD player ground still has a continuity with the first Entreq box terminal.

With the testing I did, because I was trying to "ground" the component I was "measuring", I had no choice apart from connecting to the spare SPDIF RCA. I wouldn't have been able to connect to an analogue RCA even if I could, because the card only uses 3.5mm jacks and only the SPDIF is RCA. But of course, the recording card sits a mere 2 inches away and obviously everything is already commonly grounded to begin with (but that is no different to a component based hifi setup). So as I say, that situation happens in every system to which you connect an Entreq box. I guess the difference with my tests though is largely one of distance versus a traditional component setup. In a normal hifi setup, you might have distances of some feet between components. In my tests, they are literally all under one roof (chassis). There was obviously no way to avoid that setup if I were to be able to do any measuring at all using audio soundcards.

I think Speedskater mentioned that one shouldn't use a SPDIF but I have to reiterate that I get the same sonic benefit using the SPDIF on my Rega CD player, for example, that I get when connecting my amplifier's spare analogue RCA to the Entreq box.

 

[Rodney Gold]

I thought the practical SN ratio one can get in any equipment is around 130db because of component thermal noise ?

 

[esldude]

I thought the practical SN ratio one can get in any equipment is around 130db because of component thermal noise ?

Read my earlier post about FFTs. For the 20khz band your 130 number is about right.

 

[BE718]

I thought the practical SN ratio one can get in any equipment is around 130db because of component thermal noise ?

Hi

Take look at this. http://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/tutorials/MT-001.pdf

In the real world you wont get above around 130 dB for an overall level. With an FFT you can look at lower levels. In simple terms, increase the resolution, you lower the noise.

 

[jkeny]

Thing is: even for those who have extensive grounding and chassis-grounding solutions implemented, the Entreq boxes still brought improvements, so the question is: are there residual noise problems still extant that even proper chassis-grounding doesn't resolve completely?

I believe it is so, especially considering the changing nature of the electro-magnetic and other wave nature of our surroundings we are submitted to nowadays (at one point in our times, we had no cellular communications).

Right & that's what I would like to see examined. So far all we have is a claim that proper chassis grounding will achieve the same result as the Entreq but little else in the way of evidence for this claim

 

[jkeny]

Wow, you asked for measurements. He showed, as he has maintained, the Entreq is not required to get low system noise. Would the Entreq lower his noise? Who knows. Who cares perhaps. Certainly one system with an Entreq was noisier by a good margin than one without. The distortion is very high, and it isn't coming from me.

This is why I asked for the details of BE's system as an exemplary example of a low noise system. So far he seems coy in describing/discussing what could be of great benefit to all!

 

[YashN]

This is why I asked for the details of BE's system as an exemplary example of a low noise system. So far he seems coy in describing/discussing what could be of great benefit to all!

What's needed are measurements of the Entreq from him and measurements of the same device in a variety of systems.

 

[spazmatron]

don't forget the million different boxes and the various cable types and configurations. if entreq themselves don't understand why the product gives the subjective result its claimed to then what hope you guys.

i applaud your gusto nonetheless, you can get a cheaper version of this product if people want to buy it just to measure. the details are on the original entreq thread, as should all this be but oh well. its a knock off but its the same principle, construction etc.

 

[BE718]

What's needed are measurements of the Entreq from him and measurements of the same device in a variety of systems.

OK can you describe the Entreq, what is inside, how it connects to your hifi?

 

[Barry2013]

Hi BE.
Thank you your reply in post 454.
I drew attention to the MIT, Tara Labs cable grounding to illustrate the way in which the Entreq has been singled out for criticism and attack while other similar signal grounding components have escaped comment and to be fair to you, you have responded with your views on the MIT cables and grounding box. I have no experience of them so can't comment on them, but many others obviously buy them because they like them.
Re your most recent post above full details of my system are set out on my profile. So far as the Entreq ground boxes are concerned the Entreq Poseidon, which is the most recent addition, and comprises three Olympus Minis in one box is used to ground the Vitus SIA 025 amplifier via an amplifier input and to ground the negative amplifier speaker outputs all three using Apollo ground cables. The Entreq Challenger speaker cables are grounded to a Silver Minimus, the sources and their Entreq Apollo interconnects are grounded to two Silver Tellus which are enhanced by an Atlantis ground box, and lastly the Scarlatti clock cable is grounded to a Silver Minimus.
That set up has been built up over a period of time and I am and have been very pleased with the improvements to my system's sound with both analogue and digital sources.In particular its reduction of the noise floor, transparency and overall musicality. Other Entreq users consistently report the same or similar benefits.
I make the above judgements soley on the basis of listening experience which you and others are entitled to question but which would carry more weight with me and others if you had tried the Entreq products.
I am of the view that measurements and their correlation with what can be heard is an inexact science and that the listening experience cannot and should not be dismissed simply on the basis of measurements.

 

[BE718]

Hi BE.
Thank you your reply in post 454.
I drew attention to the MIT, Tara Labs cable grounding to illustrate the way in which the Entreq has been singled out for criticism and attack while other similar signal grounding components have escaped comment and to be fair to you, you have responded with your views on the MIT cables and grounding box. I have no experience of them so can't comment on them, but many others obviously buy them because they like them.
Re your most recent post above full details of my system are set out on my profile. So far as the Entreq ground boxes are concerned the Entreq Poseidon, which is the most recent addition, and comprises three Olympus Minis in one box is used to ground the Vitus SIA 025 amplifier via an amplifier input and to ground the negative amplifier speaker outputs all three using Apollo ground cables. The Entreq Challenger speaker cables are grounded to a Silver Minimus, the sources and their Entreq Apollo interconnects are grounded to two Silver Tellus which are enhanced by an Atlantis ground box, and lastly the Scarlatti clock cable is grounded to a Silver Minimus.
That set up has been built up over a period of time and I am and have been very pleased with the improvements to my system's sound with both analogue and digital sources.In particular its reduction of the noise floor, transparency and overall musicality. Other Entreq users consistently report the same or similar benefits.
I make the above judgements soley on the basis of listening experience which you and others are entitled to question but which would carry more weight with me and others if you had tried the Entreq products.
I am of the view that measurements and their correlation with what can be heard is an inexact science and that the listening experience cannot and should not be dismissed simply on the basis of measurements.

I actually agree with you that the correlation is inexact. However what concerns me here is it seems very unclear as to what the objective of these boxes and multiple "ground" connections is and what it is actually attempting to achieve. Yeah sure you may well end up changing the sound. If you like the result who am I to argue, but I easily for-see that problems are created and not solved. Without measurement you have little idea what the final effect is on things like the system noise levels.

Fiddlles example shows this. Regardless of the poor interconnect he says caused some of the problems that were observed, the Entreq increased HF noise in that situation. Being provocative perhaps he enjoys that effect on the sound?

BTW I am quite capable of connecting the grounds of my kit together without the need to buy Entreq boxes.

And in fact the protective grond can leak back a lot of pollutions to the power net that instead go to f,ex your HiFi system with all the cables and magnetic fields and load up and rest there in their serch for ground.Our ground boxes / Eartha cables are designed to resemble and work like a bit of Mother Earth in concentrated form and offer the simplest and fastest route for this high-frequency noise to reach a earth point.

This from the website informs me they have zero idea what they are talking about. These boxes from what I understand are not connected to earth, except through your existing equipments connection. Considering that my own system has no earth connection how on earth (excuse the pun) do I achieve such low noise levels??????? Seems to me there might be a misconception going on here regarding noise being "drained" to earth. Are they saying all the noise flows into the box and just disappears????

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

Hi again,

This is my last post in this thread. As I say, I am not a measurements person and it was never my intention to get into a debate regarding measurements on any topic, let alone Entreq products. It is just unfortunate for me (and arguably fortunate for others) that this topic ended up being a measurement thread outside of the forum where such threads ought to belong. This whole saga started because I very much like what my base level Entreq Minimus Copper boxes do with the two systems I have them in and I decided to record what an LP sounded like with and without the box connected. Of course it all went on from there and we got into a measurement process which was never my intention (my intention was only for people to listen to the two different files). I likely would never have posted those original LP files at all if I had known we would go to "digital" measurements since as I have said often enough, I am not ordinarily "geared up" to record from a digital source (I only digitally record from a fully analogue sources or perform digital to digital when I am doing certain DSP hardware functions).

Anyway, I was pretty horrified as I have said before with that first cable I used to connect the playback soundcard "with Entreq" to the recording one so as to capture that output when doing the "digital" measurements. I knew the cable was not one designed for that purpose but I reiterate I live on an extremely tight budget (one reason for only owning the very entry level Entreq gear) and I did not wish to go out and spend money. But even tonight I realised that those sorts of cables are also used as de facto FM antennas on portable music devices . This horrified me even more because an "antenna effect" has been discussed here in relation to the possible effects the boxes may or may not produce.

So given that I soldered together a "proper" interconnect last night from bits I bought from Jaycar Electronics yesterday, I have decided to post one last set of files and images. And this is definitely the last. I have had more than enough of this and I am stressed out and losing sleep over it (truly).

So below you will find one last, simple test (no music this time) - it is a 20 second input file at 24 bit, 48 KHz. The first 10 seconds is complete silence, the second 10 seconds consists of a pure sine wave at -5 dBFS. The only real reason I included the sine wave was to "certify" that both output files were created with the various volume / record level settings set identically. In other words, -5 dBFS went in from the DAC analogue output and -5 dBFS went out to the ADC.

I can now confirm that the results are actually pretty much as they used to be (improved noise floor), however this time around I don't really see any significant noise added, unlike last time. If you were to overlay the two graphs, you will see a slight lowering of ostensibly the entire noise floor with the box connected. Yes, there are some bits that are bit higher but I think if you were to overlay them both you would see an overall noise advantage in favour of the box connected. Perhaps the differing noise "profiles" of the various Entreq boxes and cables is one of the reasons they sound different to each other (they certainly sounded quite different to me when I auditioned them).

Please remember too that this is Entreq's entry-level product. Entreq make far more exotic performance claims for even the very next box up in their range and even after that there are about 3 or 4 ways to further improve the setup - even if you are just talking about one type of connection such as connecting a DAC or amplifier. To put it into perspective, the total cost of the Entreq gear used in this test is around $750 AUD. Just the next box up is double the price of mine and the type of Entreq stuff that most members here own is magnitudes ahead of what I own.

The conclusion I draw from this exercise and the attached files is that at least in my systems and with my setups (as modest as they are), the Entreq Minimus Copper box with the Konstantin cable does make a measureable difference. It may not be a large improvement but I believe I can see it in the graph (I cannot overlay them myself) and I can hear it with my ears. Others will surely draw other conclusions however this is no longer my concern. I hope these final files and graphs are useful to at least some people. As for the comparative music files I previously posted, I have absolutely no reason to consider them worthless, since if you actually listen to them you will still hear the same effect that I hear when listening to live music.

Anyway, thanks for the supportive comments from some people in the thread. I just hope Entreq's lawyers do not land on my doorstep for posting those previous measurements with that terrible cable! As I say this was my mistake and I should not have posted those files (but as indicated, the music only ones "sound" fine and are indicative of the Entreq "effect").

Thank you.


Graph # 1. This shows the noise floor resulting from a digital to analogue and analogue to digital conversion process of a 24 bit file containing "digital silence". No Entreq box or Entreq cable was connected to the playback soundcard in this instance. The Entreq box and cable had been disconnected for 30 minutes before this test was performed. The graph covers the scale of -96 dBFS to -150 dBFS:





Graph # 2. This shows the noise floor in identical circumstances to Graph # 1 above, however in this instance, a base level Entreq Minimus Copper box was connected to the SPDIF RCA output terminal of the playback sound card. The cable used to connect the soundcard to the Entreq box is the Eartha Konstantin. The box and cable had been connected for 24 hours prior to this test being performed. The graph covers the scale of -96 dBFS to -150 dBFS:




Perhaps Amir might be considerate enough to do an "overlay" analysis like he did before, as I do not know how to make such useful and lucid graphs.

Finally, here is the suite of test files and actual pgn images of the above graphs. The graphs above were made by analysing the first 480,000 samples in each of the two output files.

https://www.sendspace.com/file/o8rh7s

 

[Barry2013]

Thank you FF for your latest post.
We are all very grateful indeed for all the work you have done and there really is no need to get stressed about some of the responses. You know what you hear and have honestly set out your measurements after a lot of hard work.
Others may disagree but a lot us have the same beneficial experiences that you experience.
Disagreements, justified or not, are part of everyday life so just treat them as such.
You have advanced this thread immeasurably, deliberate pun, so just hang in there as I am sure none of us want to lose your continuing contributions.

 

[Barry2013]

Yeh.. the great internet audio battle.. subjectivist VS objectivist.. a dead hoss being beaten for the zillionth time.. no converts , no conclusions , no prisoners..
My take is that there is room in this hobby for both..

Hi Rodney.
I have been reading with great interest the contributions on the Furutech GTX-D NFC (R) thread and the effects of the different metals.
In the context of this thread it has prompted the question as to whether the different plugs/outlets show measurable differences if analysed as in the measurements posted in this thread?

 

[jkeny]

What's needed are measurements of the Entreq from him and measurements of the same device in a variety of systems.

Well, firstly I think it would be of great benefit to all for BE to show, in practise, what his well designed grounding arrangement consists of - maybe discuss it along with the limitations, if any, it imposes on choosing other audio devices - devices which won't disturb this carefully chosen ground configuration?

From what he says, all his devices are double insulated meaning that there is no ground wire but there has to be a point where signal ground & mains ground connect so maybe he can say where that happens - Naim are a company that have followed this route & have their signal & mains earth connected in their CDP, AFAIK - but there are many issues with using non-Naim equipment in a Naim playback chain.

So I would be interested in what BE has to say about this issue - what happens when a grounded device is used in this chain of audio devices - a device which effectively disturbs this exemplary ground configuration & introduces the potential for earth loops & signal ground pollution.

You know, if he can give the practical guidelines (I don't just mean select all devices which are balanced or double insulated) to audio device selection then people could save themselves a fortune by all accounts as he has reported neither the Regen nor Intona seem to have any measureable or audible effect in his system & he further contends that the Entreq would have the same null result & I presume any device aimed at ground issues would be similar?

So, rather than being seen as a constant critic of many audio devices, he could actually become known as a useful resource of practical information. This is something Treitz & myself have asked of him already.

 

[jkeny]

Hey, FF, I can see & admire the passion that you have for this & often people treat such passion in an offhand, dismissive manner, which can seem personally offensive. But don't let this get to you - you've done great work here - be proud of it - sit back & see how this thread unfolds - keep a watching brief on it.