Wow. I don't know where to start. You haven't actually heard the gear in your own system. You certainly haven't given it a decent audition - period.You haven't actually seen it in your hands. You are just looking at photos on the internet of a box that has been hacked open and you've made your mind up by looking at the inside of the box and seeing the components laid out. You probably haven't heard my sound files. And you seem to ignore the many posts I have made in the other thread praising the improvements in the sound brought about by Entreq components. Instead you conclude that I am somehow enjoying a product that makes the sound worse and adds noise like an antenna. Yet you say that you want / need to measure it, but ironically and notwithstanding, without measuring it you've already decided that it just ruins the sound of components that are (according to you) flawed in design to begin with. This presumably includes the dCS Vivaldi DAC since a member here uses Entreq with that DAC as well and achieves an improvement in the sound - even with a component that is arguably the best engineered digital component in existence.
There seems to be no point arguing with someone like yourself because you've already made your mind up and obviously no one is going to change it. I'd opine, however, that reasonable, unbiased open-minded observers of this thread would be wondering how you've managed to crucify a component you actually have had nothing whatsoever to so with.
As for making the sound "better" or "worse", it is not nearly as simple as you obviously would like it to be. I use a digital workstation with analogue inputs and I was able to compare two Entreq products on that (copper and silver Minimus) along with no Entreq gear at all. I was able to compare (by real time monitoring) the straight analogue input, along with the recorded digital of that input - one recorded with no Entreq, one with copper Entreq and one with silver Entreq.
On my workstation (which by deliberate design is about as neutral as I have heard), the silver Entreq box inclusion produced a digital transcription of an analogue input more accurate sonically to that original analogue source than both the copper box - and certainly better than no Entreq at all. However when mixing (i.e working wholly in the digital domain with real time capture with DSP applied), the copper box produced a more accurate result than the other two methods. But on the consumer-based system I use in my living room (which like almost every system in existence has strengths and weaknesses, all of which colour the sound and give it a particular character), the silver box actually supplemented that particular character. So it was too much. The copper, however, did not accentuate those flaws and instead complimented them, thereby making the sound of that system more neutral. I am perfectly happy to concede that the copper worked better than the "better" silver in that system because that system is not high end and the flaws in it are more obvious than high end stuff. I'm not the first person in the world to prefer a lesser component in a system that synergises better than an expensive one and I won't be the last. However the fact that owners of gear vastly superior to mine get improved results from the silver box supports the notion that the more accurate and better engineered the system is, the better will be the result using the higher end Entreq stuff as opposed to the low end stuff.
As for Entreq products actually distorting the sound by adding noise (or whatever else you might suggest), this is completely at odds with my listening experience. If these products did distort the sound (say by adding RF or other noise or artefacts), there is no way that a greater low level of detail would be heard, better 3D imaging, better timbre, tighter bass and a more focussed high end. Because those things are never the results of lowering the quality of the source or the reproduction gear - those results are only achieved by improving it.
As for you asking about further measurements from me, I am declining for several reasons. Firstly, you have already been judge jury and executioner and nothing I do is going to change your mind. It will just give you more ammunition to keep on arguing. For example, were I to discover by measurement that the silver Entreq reduces noise from -120 dB at 50 Hz to -122 dB at 50 hz (whereas say the copper one reduces noise at 2 KHz by the same), you would simply argue that this is irrelevant because those levels are far beyond the audibility of humans and cannot possibly effect what we hear. I've been through this all before. I could then try to tell you that I can easily hear how dithering at a 24 bit level produces clearly audible results depending on the noise shaping (even though again there is no noise added even remotely within a human's hearing capability) and you'd just say the same thing. Or you would just point out flaws with the methodology, flaws with the equipment, flaws everywhere. Because you've already resolved to put these products in the flawed and rip-off category and therefore you have to ensure that all evidence to the contrary is ignored - just in the same way that not none single time have you even given one milligram of weight to the hundreds of users who have praised the gear and who wouldn't be seen dead removing it from their systems. You also ignore the anecdotal evidence (this happened to both myself and another user) where the Entreq cable was knocked off the terminal and we both wondered why our sound had gone downhill until we looked at the back of the system and saw the detached cable.
In any case, I only produced those comparative files as a one-off because I was on holidays, did not need to use the workstation for a couple of months and needed to do some bi-annual maintenance on it (complete strip down, clean and rebuild). It takes a little time for the system to optimise itself once again when the cable is reconnected and with daily use of the workstation, I can't afford to go experimenting again until the next service is due.
