Entreq Tellus grounding

Arrived before the WE so I had time to install one by one on my 2 Poseidons.

IMG_4085-1.jpg


nice packages, they look like jewels.


IMG_4088-1.jpg



IMG_4111-1.jpg

I tried to install the first Everest associated to the Earha Apollo USB to ground my MacMini. Was very hard to find some kind of change.
The second test was to ground both the Totaldac Reclocker and The DAC D1 Dual which are connected to 2 separate plugs of Poseidon through a couple of Eartha Atlantis.
I started to hear some kind of improvement but, contrary of Mike and Detlof experiences, I found more improvements in term of warm tone (well balanced and just fine at the top end).
Then, I've installed the last 3 Everests to the second Poseidon used to ground the negative terminal and the balanced inputs of my Spectral.
here I had the main improvement. Sound is a little more organic, soundstage is deeper and larger with improved great dynamics. But, In my system, with all six Everests installed, the top end frequencies are perhaps too "smooth" with a tendency to have a sense of veiling.
I think I have to remove one Everest starting from the one used to boost the part of Poseidon connected to ground my Mac Mini. In the past I noted which an exccesive "boost" of the USB ground (with the atlantis box) caused a sort of "boxed" sound.
I will proceed with my test, (I will replace the Eartha Apollo with Atlantis SS on the negative terminals of the Spectral), but the first impression is that the introduction of Everests allows my system to take a further step forward in the definition of a more real and musical sound.
 
Last edited:
Caliaripaolo ... Good to hear on progress . Changing the Apollo to Atlantis will be a nice solid step ahead . About the HF sounding closed in or overtly smooth ... Try vary the screw on of the Everest . You must have it tightly clamped on , try loosen it a few turns and see . Happy Listening .
 
Caliaripaolo ... Good to hear on progress . Changing the Apollo to Atlantis will be a nice solid step ahead . About the HF sounding closed in or overtly smooth ... Try vary the screw on of the Everest . You must have it tightly clamped on , try loosen it a few turns and see . Happy Listening .

Thanks Jazzhead,
do you mean which varying the screw, the result is a sort of fine tuning?
 
Thanks Jazzhead,
do you mean which varying the screw, the result is a sort of fine tuning?

Yes I found it to be , see if it works for you
 
there is a danger to get 'eyes rolling' as we delve into degrees of the mystical power of music to affect us. but it is absolutely true that musical involvement and the pleasure we derive can be affected by how great it sounds. and I know that my body's reaction (all senses, not just hearing) to the music tells me a lot. there are thresholds of experience that transport me to a bit of a zen state and I want to live in that spot. system tuning with various products seems to get us closer to this mystical thing.
E.

Mike, you put it beautifully well. That is what our passion is about. In my words: I have reached this stage you describe, when I can completely forget about "the machines", I do not think about the "sound", there is just the music, which fills my entire being at this moment in time. One might argue, that music may also enthrall you coming from a simple radio, but then there is a difference, because it is your labour, your thoughts and planning, your sacrifices in time and money, this passion, your creation, in the sense of assembling and tweaking, which makes these moments possible. You are the music maker, searching for perfection, because sadly perhaps, you need "machines", in place your very own music making, to reach that moment of zen you talk about, which does not come from nothing, but from perhaps a part which is the best in you, because it is play, but also deeply serious. A wonderful luxury and privilege, we have to be deeply grateful for.
 
I have to say that has been my experience with Entreq/Tripoint and Stillpoints Apertures...they have taken a fundamentally sound system with high quality technical skills, coupled with OCD isolation and solid power fundamentals...and eradicated a level of mechanical-sounding 'grunge' that has allowed not musical notes to come through better, but also a level of nuance, decay, separation, ease of delivery that also then translates into a MUCH better sense of 'pregnant pauses' and 'intonations' that make so much difference in moving from high-resolution sound reproduction...to music making in your room.

After taking only a few days here or there 'off' to allow myself a break, i have finally gone over 4 months from first installation to rough setup, to approximately there, to finally being able to hear simple changes, to then being able to hear subtle changes, to finally being able to tweak everything to get it to where i sense the system is ultimately capable.

the final move involved 5 Everest posts to intensify the tone and drive upper bass...and moving the Stillpoints Apertures 8 inches (20cm or so) further to the outer edges behind the speakers. And everything snapped into place. But these refinements and subtle movements dont do much if the rest of the system (including Entreq, isolation, power, and everything else) is already also quite advanced in its setup.
 
I just received a demo Everest and K2 today. Have not done any listening yet as I am currently testing them out on my workstation when doing mixing on a pre-determined set of tracks I compiled yesterday. I will transfer the demo units to the hifi system probably on the weekend or next week. I noticed that the metal used in the Everest (the protruding part containing the screw thread) is very hard - almost like it has some sort of titanium alloy component in it, but the corresponding metal in the K2 is very soft - almost like a copper-based alloy (I have no idea what they are, just describing the physical appearance as I see it). Did anyone else notice this? The difference is big enough that I couldn't consider this a normal manufacturing variation and I am wondering if this is instrumental to the reported different types of qualities of each (i.e. it is a deliberate manufacturing decision).
 
I do now have some preliminary findings but this is just after one afternoon of listening - however I have listened to 30 different classical excerpts that were previously prepared specifically for this audition - I purposely picked them because they are not particularly great sounding. Well I mean they are good - even "quite good", but I have purposely avoided great recordings. What is the point of listening to a great recording? It will sound great on anything and my record collection only has about a dozen such "great" recordings - the rest are simply "very good", "good" or "OK". Most of what I have been listening to would rate consistently with one of the latter three descriptors.

Anyway, I did not hear what I was expecting to hear. I was expecting to hate the Everest and like the K2. As it turns out so far, I don't like the K2 but I potentially may like the Everest. The K2 does add a sense of greater resolution - mainly observable in terms of a more focussed, less tubby top end. But this comes at the expense of finesse, overall cleanliness and a sense of ultimate top end extension. It was described by others as organic sounding but I did not hear this at all - my existing setup (with stock wood knobs) sounds noticeably more organic sounding than either the K2 or Everest (though organic does not necessarily mean better). The K2 just seems to be the audio equivalent of turning up the sharpness control on a TV and hoping to watch the appropriate content that might benefit from doing that. But more often than not, it just ends up sounding (looking) good for 10 minutes then I am fatigued.

The Everest on the other hand, presents an even more sharply defined, clear and focused top end (it's like a K2 times three). I was thinking I might hear differences in the bass since this has been much discussed, however I can't really say that I have to be honest - it is the top end that to me is the biggest difference over the stock wooden knobs. That said, again there is a price to pay for this clarity, but it is nowhere nearly as steep a price as with the K2. But it is very easy to overdo it with this Entreq stuff. For example, if I process a mix using the Everest on my workstation then play that mix it back on my hifi with the Everest connected to the Minimus box used with the amplifer, it is just way too much. That TV sharpness control analogy again. Sharpness set to 100%. I get a better result just leaving an Everest off the amplifier altogether and just using one Everest "once" in my whole production / reproduction chain.

So there is much more experimentation to do. Although I am happy to only focus on the Everest, there is still a whole heap of tuning that can be done - which components to actually use it with and in combination with which other tweaks / adjustments...

I think my biggest challenge will be coming to any half-reasonable conclusion within a week. Part of me is telling me this is nothing but a step sideways and another part of me tells me to take the dive into the next realm of high(er) resolution, for better or worse (and definitely not for richer but for poorer).

Since apparently the "48 hour" rules applies to the Everest that is what I will do next: do another mix after the thing has been attached to the workstation for 48 hours and then listen on my hifi when it has been connected to that for 48 hours. That gives me 3 days to then make a final decision.
 
Thanks for your posts FF
I am sure the metal differences you noticed as between the K2 and the Everest is a deliberate design choice.
Yours is the first feedback on the K2 so particularly interesting as I just have the Everests which I am very happy with. No ill effects in my system and the bass has been cleaner and more free flowing since installing them.
Experience does suggest that they need a period of about 48 hours to settle in so will look forward to reading your further impressions in the next few days,
 
Thanks for your posts FF
I am sure the metal differences you noticed as between the K2 and the Everest is a deliberate design choice.
Yours is the first feedback on the K2 so particularly interesting as I just have the Everests which I am very happy with. No ill effects in my system and the bass has been cleaner and more free flowing since installing them.
Experience does suggest that they need a period of about 48 hours to settle in so will look forward to reading your further impressions in the next few days,

Hi Barry,

After taking another close look at the Everest and K2 side by side the differences in the metal composition are extremely obvious. I actually wrote to the dealer upon receiving the two demo units since I was as much curious about it as I was concerned that it might have been some sort of manufacturing variation beyond what I was expecting (my initial simplistic take on the matter being that the difference between the K2 and Everest was nothing more than the volume of the "metal mix" - less in the K2 due to the shorter protrusion from the wooden barrel). However that hypothesis on my part was clearly incorrect - it is plainly obvious they are completely different metal compositions - the metal in the K2 has a slightly more dull appearance, has a darker hue (so almost reminiscent of a weak bronze mix), is softer and the little screw / retaining pin sort of structure you see on the side of the barrel is copper-coloured versus bright silver-coloured (almost rhodium-like) in the Everest. Note: I have absolutely no idea of what actual metals are in these devices and Entreq aren't saying - I am just describing the actual appearance.

So it is pretty obvious that the two products were made with two different sonic flavours in mind rather than the K2 merely being a "half dose" Everest so to speak. And actually after much more experimentation over the last day or so it has now come to the point where for me the K2 has sonically pulled ahead of the Everest in my setups as I appreciate it's unique sonic qualities and have given it a chance to "run-in", but I will expand on that once my audition is complete. Suffice to say for the moment that if anyone reading this is a bowed stringed instrument player or luthier, the best analogy I can come up with is that the K2 is the Pirastro Eudoxa of the range and the Everest is the Pirastro Olive of the range.


As for how long they take to yield the sound, I 100% agree that you simply cannot make any judgement as to what these products do even after a couple of hours (my first mistake), let alone within 10 minutes or even immediately after connection (though you do "lose" the sound immediately after disconnection). I've been making digital recordings out of the DAC analogue outputs with and without the knobs connected (so wood knob versus K2 knob versus Everest knob) and I have come to determine that the sweet spot for these knobs seems to occur around 4 hours after connection to the cable / box. And this was with the DAC and recorder having been on already for a day so that they were eliminated from the equation.

I am not saying the sound does not improve after 4 hours - only that I feel - at least from my experimentation - that any changes beyond the 4 hour mark are extremely subtle and are not going to change the user's perception of the result to any significant degree. In other words, sufficient for audition purposes. And I actually hope that this information will help people with the audition process since with many people's complex Entreq setups (most are far more complex than mine which simply consists of three Minimus boxes and three Eartha cables) and with two screw-on products out there, the complexities of the inevitably demanding audition process can be considerable.
 
I've actually now completed my audition process having determined that one only really needs to have a K2 or Everest connected to a binding post for around 3 to 4 hours to ostensibly arrive at the "final" sound. Obviously that sped up the process somewhat since I was able to audition all the proposed permutations over a few days of intensive listening. I don't dispute Barry's advice that 2 days is optimal (I am sure he is right), however observing a 48-hour protocol is likely to be impractical for audition purposes and any improvements (or changes) to the sound after 4 hours are inconsequential when compared to the initial change in sound experienced when deploying the K2 or Everest in the first instance.

As mentioned previously, I had compiled a large number of excerpts to listen to - all of them classical and all taken from my high resolution digital transcriptions of my vinyl collection (though carefully and painstakingly converted to CD format using Izotope resampling, PSP X-Dither, mastering quality Japanese SPMPT CD-R blanks burned on an audiophile quality Pioneer S09J-X burner - played back on the Rega CD player). Some 30 diverse recordings from the Decca / London, DG, Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo prevailed and all were selected because they are what I call "make or break" recordings. What I mean by this is that they can really sound good on a great setup but can sound miserable on a sub-optimal setup. These are not my best recordings by any means - as I say I just cannot see the point of listening to great recordings when choosing audio equipment. It is better to listen to average recordings since great recordings are comparatively rare and as a music-lover first, my collection only has a relatively small number of such recordings, even though I exclusively buy "audiophile vinyl".

So far as my initial fears were concerned - not being able to hear any difference versus the stock wooden knob - I need not have worried. The difference between the Everest and the stock wood knob I found to be much greater than the difference between using a plan Minimus box (with Eartha cable) and nothing at all! Amazing for such a small device given the comparatively enormous size of the Minimus. The K2, on the other hand, had a more subtle effect and was more of a supplement or an enhancement to the effect and character of the Minimus.

The main sonic difference I noted with the Everest was an extremely obvious sharpening of the midrange and top-end in particular - resulting in a significant improvement in overall focus and clarity. It was almost like employing an equaliser and taking out a smidgeon of bass out around the 30 Hz mark (which adds clarity and actually thins out the top end a little), adding treble around the 16 KHz mark and beefing up the midrange a tiny bit around 4 KHz. It really is like getting a few extra bits of resolution even though obviously none of these things can be happening on a purely technical level. To go back to my favourite TV picture analogy, the Everest is like turning up the sharpness, colour, brightness and contrast controls almost to the point where it is larger than life. And that, unfortunately, was ultimately the problem I had with the Everest. It just seemed to overdo everything more often than not. The treble and upper midrange often became fatiguing and overly fierce, possibly not helped by the improved bass clarity (which as mentioned, has a flow-on effect as to how we perceive the other frequency ranges).

I must point out at this juncture however, that the Everest improved things remarkably well when listening exclusively to extremely good recordings that are inherently well balanced to begin with and are devoid of any particularly unpleasant characteristics. My best Deccas, DG, RCA Living Stereo and Mercuries did sound noticeably better with the Everest. No question at all. Infact with great recordings, I could only sit back and marvel how a tiny piece of wood and metal could make such a difference. It made the asking price a relative bargain given that I've heard smaller differences between phono cartridges that are several thousands of dollars apart in price. Furthermore, for recordings that were perhaps a little wanting in top end resolution, the Everest was a very welcome improvement. But in the end, I found that the Everest made hard work of too many recordings despite making many recordings sound noticeably better.

The K2 was a very different kettle of fish. As I alluded to several posts ago, I wasn't terribly impressed with the K2 at first, but at the time I had only had the device connected for several minutes before attempting to appraise it. Furthermore, I wasn't taking into account the additive effect of having more than one K2 deployed, nor the effect of placing it on, say, an amplifier only versus the CD player (like the Everest it seems you can overdo it with these devices and the best sounding setup may still involve having some Entreq cables connected using the stock wooden knobs).

Sonically the K2 has a more benign impact on the sound. As mentioned it tends to enhance the character of the Minimus rather than try to turn it into something else altogether as the Everest did. The K2 does not cause the top end or midrange to sound as aggressive as they do with the Everest, however the K2 still noticeably adds definition and clarity to them - just not to the point, however where the sonic presentation became potentially irritating and fatiguing. Perhaps an analogy here is that the K2 is like swapping out stock valves (tubes) on your pre-amp or amp for a more expensive, highly regarded NOS variant. Yes, the music still does sound "sharper" and clearer, but the K2 seems to preserve a good deal of the essential "analogue warmth" of the presentation whereas I felt that the Everest made the music more "digital" in character. From a longer-term listening perspective - say a decent 2 hour session - the K2 attempts to trample lightly and with a degree of subtlety whereas the Everest wants to stomp on things - for better or worse.

I no longer feel that the K2 is merely a "low dose" Everest (or the Everest a K2 on steroids). The two devices definitely have a different character. Based upon my previous experience when comparing the plain and silver Minimus boxes, I think it is fair to say that the K2 attempts to preserve and enhance the "house sound" of the copper-based Entreq products whilst the Everest attempts to preserve and enhance the "house sound" of the Entreq products using more advanced and more expensive metal mixtures.

In summary, I feel that the Everest would be an excellent choice for listeners who are extremely picky with the recordings they own and prefer to mostly play excellent sounding recordings at moderate volume levels. I think the Everest would also do well on fully-analogue setups or high end setups using top of the line digital transports and DACs. After all, let's face it - I do not own anything like a state of the art digital front end. And if I did, it would inherently exhibit less of the undesirable characteristics of lessor equipment (such as mine) that the Everest tends to reveal and "enhance". And for that reason I am glad there is the K2 option. The K2 option, whilst clearly incapable of achieving the sonic excellence of the Everest in the right circumstances, would nevertheless appear to be more friendly to less costly systems since it is not as forensic as the Everest and is kinder to average and below average recordings.
 
Fiddle Faddle,

While i only have my own personal experience with the Everest by which to compare to your very detailed assessment, i have to say that seems like an extremely fair review based on my listening experiences, combined with what the Distributor here has said about the K2 in his own personal system. Thanks for taking a lot of time not only to do the assessment, but to write up with such detail and thought.

I do not have the ability to use the Everest with my amps or speaker posts, and have a Tripoint box, not Entreq. However, i do use a lot of Entreq wraps, weights, and also 5 of their Receivus (which have knobs)...so i am using the Everest there, and have a similar view of what you have said about them. They are definitely staying here! Enjoy.
 
I've actually now completed my audition process having determined that one only really needs to have a K2 or Everest connected to a binding post for around 3 to 4 hours to ostensibly arrive at the "final" sound. Obviously that sped up the process somewhat since I was able to audition all the proposed permutations over a few days of intensive listening. I don't dispute Barry's advice that 2 days is optimal (I am sure he is right), however observing a 48-hour protocol is likely to be impractical for audition purposes and any improvements (or changes) to the sound after 4 hours are inconsequential when compared to the initial change in sound experienced when deploying the K2 or Everest in the first instance.

As mentioned previously, I had compiled a large number of excerpts to listen to - all of them classical and all taken from my high resolution digital transcriptions of my vinyl collection (though carefully and painstakingly converted to CD format using Izotope resampling, PSP X-Dither, mastering quality Japanese SPMPT CD-R blanks burned on an audiophile quality Pioneer S09J-X burner - played back on the Rega CD player). Some 30 diverse recordings from the Decca / London, DG, Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo prevailed and all were selected because they are what I call "make or break" recordings. What I mean by this is that they can really sound good on a great setup but can sound miserable on a sub-optimal setup. These are not my best recordings by any means - as I say I just cannot see the point of listening to great recordings when choosing audio equipment. It is better to listen to average recordings since great recordings are comparatively rare and as a music-lover first, my collection only has a relatively small number of such recordings, even though I exclusively buy "audiophile vinyl".

So far as my initial fears were concerned - not being able to hear any difference versus the stock wooden knob - I need not have worried. The difference between the Everest and the stock wood knob I found to be much greater than the difference between using a plan Minimus box (with Eartha cable) and nothing at all! Amazing for such a small device given the comparatively enormous size of the Minimus. The K2, on the other hand, had a more subtle effect and was more of a supplement or an enhancement to the effect and character of the Minimus.

The main sonic difference I noted with the Everest was an extremely obvious sharpening of the midrange and top-end in particular - resulting in a significant improvement in overall focus and clarity. It was almost like employing an equaliser and taking out a smidgeon of bass out around the 30 Hz mark (which adds clarity and actually thins out the top end a little), adding treble around the 16 KHz mark and beefing up the midrange a tiny bit around 4 KHz. It really is like getting a few extra bits of resolution even though obviously none of these things can be happening on a purely technical level. To go back to my favourite TV picture analogy, the Everest is like turning up the sharpness, colour, brightness and contrast controls almost to the point where it is larger than life. And that, unfortunately, was ultimately the problem I had with the Everest. It just seemed to overdo everything more often than not. The treble and upper midrange often became fatiguing and overly fierce, possibly not helped by the improved bass clarity (which as mentioned, has a flow-on effect as to how we perceive the other frequency ranges).

I must point out at this juncture however, that the Everest improved things remarkably well when listening exclusively to extremely good recordings that are inherently well balanced to begin with and are devoid of any particularly unpleasant characteristics. My best Deccas, DG, RCA Living Stereo and Mercuries did sound noticeably better with the Everest. No question at all. Infact with great recordings, I could only sit back and marvel how a tiny piece of wood and metal could make such a difference. It made the asking price a relative bargain given that I've heard smaller differences between phono cartridges that are several thousands of dollars apart in price. Furthermore, for recordings that were perhaps a little wanting in top end resolution, the Everest was a very welcome improvement. But in the end, I found that the Everest made hard work of too many recordings despite making many recordings sound noticeably better.

The K2 was a very different kettle of fish. As I alluded to several posts ago, I wasn't terribly impressed with the K2 at first, but at the time I had only had the device connected for several minutes before attempting to appraise it. Furthermore, I wasn't taking into account the additive effect of having more than one K2 deployed, nor the effect of placing it on, say, an amplifier only versus the CD player (like the Everest it seems you can overdo it with these devices and the best sounding setup may still involve having some Entreq cables connected using the stock wooden knobs).

Sonically the K2 has a more benign impact on the sound. As mentioned it tends to enhance the character of the Minimus rather than try to turn it into something else altogether as the Everest did. The K2 does not cause the top end or midrange to sound as aggressive as they do with the Everest, however the K2 still noticeably adds definition and clarity to them - just not to the point, however where the sonic presentation became potentially irritating and fatiguing. Perhaps an analogy here is that the K2 is like swapping out stock valves (tubes) on your pre-amp or amp for a more expensive, highly regarded NOS variant. Yes, the music still does sound "sharper" and clearer, but the K2 seems to preserve a good deal of the essential "analogue warmth" of the presentation whereas I felt that the Everest made the music more "digital" in character. From a longer-term listening perspective - say a decent 2 hour session - the K2 attempts to trample lightly and with a degree of subtlety whereas the Everest wants to stomp on things - for better or worse.

I no longer feel that the K2 is merely a "low dose" Everest (or the Everest a K2 on steroids). The two devices definitely have a different character. Based upon my previous experience when comparing the plain and silver Minimus boxes, I think it is fair to say that the K2 attempts to preserve and enhance the "house sound" of the copper-based Entreq products whilst the Everest attempts to preserve and enhance the "house sound" of the Entreq products using more advanced and more expensive metal mixtures.

In summary, I feel that the Everest would be an excellent choice for listeners who are extremely picky with the recordings they own and prefer to mostly play excellent sounding recordings at moderate volume levels. I think the Everest would also do well on fully-analogue setups or high end setups using top of the line digital transports and DACs. After all, let's face it - I do not own anything like a state of the art digital front end. And if I did, it would inherently exhibit less of the undesirable characteristics of lessor equipment (such as mine) that the Everest tends to reveal and "enhance". And for that reason I am glad there is the K2 option. The K2 option, whilst clearly incapable of achieving the sonic excellence of the Everest in the right circumstances, would nevertheless appear to be more friendly to less costly systems since it is not as forensic as the Everest and is kinder to average and below average recordings.

Fiddel Faddle,

first off, I will echo Lloyd's thanks for the detailed feedback on the Everest verses the K2 knobs in your system.

your perspective fits into my perceptions too. whenever more truth gets added to the equation, that can cut both ways. it can spotlight areas where we have opportunities to go further, or tell us this new 'truth teller' is not synergistic with the current system.

we are all at different spots in overall system development and refinement. it is helpful to see deeper into how different bits fit into the equation to point the way to better decisions. and how important it can be to have a wide variety of music to test new things with. patience gets rewarded with more real forward steps, or peace about where we are at.

others thinking about these products will be well served to take your feedback to heart as an important data point.
 
I've actually now completed my audition process having determined that one only really needs to have a K2 or Everest connected to a binding post for around 3 to 4 hours to ostensibly arrive at the "final" sound. Obviously that sped up the process somewhat since I was able to audition all the proposed permutations over a few days of intensive listening. I don't dispute Barry's advice that 2 days is optimal (I am sure he is right), however observing a 48-hour protocol is likely to be impractical for audition purposes and any improvements (or changes) to the sound after 4 hours are inconsequential when compared to the initial change in sound experienced when deploying the K2 or Everest in the first instance.

As mentioned previously, I had compiled a large number of excerpts to listen to - all of them classical and all taken from my high resolution digital transcriptions of my vinyl collection (though carefully and painstakingly converted to CD format using Izotope resampling, PSP X-Dither, mastering quality Japanese SPMPT CD-R blanks burned on an audiophile quality Pioneer S09J-X burner - played back on the Rega CD player). Some 30 diverse recordings from the Decca / London, DG, Mercury Living Presence and RCA Living Stereo prevailed and all were selected because they are what I call "make or break" recordings. What I mean by this is that they can really sound good on a great setup but can sound miserable on a sub-optimal setup. These are not my best recordings by any means - as I say I just cannot see the point of listening to great recordings when choosing audio equipment. It is better to listen to average recordings since great recordings are comparatively rare and as a music-lover first, my collection only has a relatively small number of such recordings, even though I exclusively buy "audiophile vinyl".

So far as my initial fears were concerned - not being able to hear any difference versus the stock wooden knob - I need not have worried. The difference between the Everest and the stock wood knob I found to be much greater than the difference between using a plan Minimus box (with Eartha cable) and nothing at all! Amazing for such a small device given the comparatively enormous size of the Minimus. The K2, on the other hand, had a more subtle effect and was more of a supplement or an enhancement to the effect and character of the Minimus.

The main sonic difference I noted with the Everest was an extremely obvious sharpening of the midrange and top-end in particular - resulting in a significant improvement in overall focus and clarity. It was almost like employing an equaliser and taking out a smidgeon of bass out around the 30 Hz mark (which adds clarity and actually thins out the top end a little), adding treble around the 16 KHz mark and beefing up the midrange a tiny bit around 4 KHz. It really is like getting a few extra bits of resolution even though obviously none of these things can be happening on a purely technical level. To go back to my favourite TV picture analogy, the Everest is like turning up the sharpness, colour, brightness and contrast controls almost to the point where it is larger than life. And that, unfortunately, was ultimately the problem I had with the Everest. It just seemed to overdo everything more often than not. The treble and upper midrange often became fatiguing and overly fierce, possibly not helped by the improved bass clarity (which as mentioned, has a flow-on effect as to how we perceive the other frequency ranges).

I must point out at this juncture however, that the Everest improved things remarkably well when listening exclusively to extremely good recordings that are inherently well balanced to begin with and are devoid of any particularly unpleasant characteristics. My best Deccas, DG, RCA Living Stereo and Mercuries did sound noticeably better with the Everest. No question at all. Infact with great recordings, I could only sit back and marvel how a tiny piece of wood and metal could make such a difference. It made the asking price a relative bargain given that I've heard smaller differences between phono cartridges that are several thousands of dollars apart in price. Furthermore, for recordings that were perhaps a little wanting in top end resolution, the Everest was a very welcome improvement. But in the end, I found that the Everest made hard work of too many recordings despite making many recordings sound noticeably better.

The K2 was a very different kettle of fish. As I alluded to several posts ago, I wasn't terribly impressed with the K2 at first, but at the time I had only had the device connected for several minutes before attempting to appraise it. Furthermore, I wasn't taking into account the additive effect of having more than one K2 deployed, nor the effect of placing it on, say, an amplifier only versus the CD player (like the Everest it seems you can overdo it with these devices and the best sounding setup may still involve having some Entreq cables connected using the stock wooden knobs).

Sonically the K2 has a more benign impact on the sound. As mentioned it tends to enhance the character of the Minimus rather than try to turn it into something else altogether as the Everest did. The K2 does not cause the top end or midrange to sound as aggressive as they do with the Everest, however the K2 still noticeably adds definition and clarity to them - just not to the point, however where the sonic presentation became potentially irritating and fatiguing. Perhaps an analogy here is that the K2 is like swapping out stock valves (tubes) on your pre-amp or amp for a more expensive, highly regarded NOS variant. Yes, the music still does sound "sharper" and clearer, but the K2 seems to preserve a good deal of the essential "analogue warmth" of the presentation whereas I felt that the Everest made the music more "digital" in character. From a longer-term listening perspective - say a decent 2 hour session - the K2 attempts to trample lightly and with a degree of subtlety whereas the Everest wants to stomp on things - for better or worse.

I no longer feel that the K2 is merely a "low dose" Everest (or the Everest a K2 on steroids). The two devices definitely have a different character. Based upon my previous experience when comparing the plain and silver Minimus boxes, I think it is fair to say that the K2 attempts to preserve and enhance the "house sound" of the copper-based Entreq products whilst the Everest attempts to preserve and enhance the "house sound" of the Entreq products using more advanced and more expensive metal mixtures.

In summary, I feel that the Everest would be an excellent choice for listeners who are extremely picky with the recordings they own and prefer to mostly play excellent sounding recordings at moderate volume levels. I think the Everest would also do well on fully-analogue setups or high end setups using top of the line digital transports and DACs. After all, let's face it - I do not own anything like a state of the art digital front end. And if I did, it would inherently exhibit less of the undesirable characteristics of lessor equipment (such as mine) that the Everest tends to reveal and "enhance". And for that reason I am glad there is the K2 option. The K2 option, whilst clearly incapable of achieving the sonic excellence of the Everest in the right circumstances, would nevertheless appear to be more friendly to less costly systems since it is not as forensic as the Everest and is kinder to average and below average recordings.

Fiddle Faddle,

Just a short note to tell you how helpful I found your report as well as to thank you for it. Your findings mirror my struggles with the sound of the upper mids and the top end with the Everests installed, especially with, as you say, mediocre recordings. And indeed, as music lovers we know, how many great interpretatons fall, as recordings, under that category!
Luckily, I have a crossover for my speakers I can fiddle with on the fly from my listening position, so I have matters now fairly well in hand and can enjoy the advantages of the Everests, which I still find rather difficult to describe, but seem to be able to best pinpoint in improved flow, swings and transients in the musical presentation.
 
Last edited:
FF thank you very much indeed for all your hard work evaluating and comparing the the K2s and the Everests.
We are all in your debt for such a thorough and rigorouus exercise.
It all rang very true to me and as confirmed by other posts.
It reminded me of the differences between the Apollo and Atlantis earth cables and the fact that the Atlantis does not always work as well as the Apollo in some systems.
Entreq must be one of the few manufacturers who openly acknowledge that the most expensive is not always the most appropriate.
So thank you again and enjoy the K2.
 
Thanks for all the good feedback guys. I am likely to purchase three K2 units however I only have immediate plans to deploy two in the system. The only reason for that is I haven't a clue what three are going to sound like since I did not have three to try. Three may overdo it but then again it may not. Worse case scenario is I have an extra for when down the track I upgrade the digital front end.

Of course you know what I am thinking of now in terms of the ultimate Entreq offering? A switchable box - just like switchable filters on a DAC. The box has several flavours of Entreq presentation - the "copper" one, the "silver" one, plus combined effects of those with the K2 or Everest seasoning. You pick which works best for any given recording. And picking the right combination is not as hard as it sounds, since the differences are pretty obvious - just like switching filters on a DAC. If I had that functionality, I and everyone else could get 100% goodness all the time, instead of 70% goodness, 29% nothingness and 1% badness versus 50% goodness and 50% badness, etc, etc. It would then be a simple matter of annotating each recording for the best combination. Even though there would be a delay in getting the full effect after switching, you still get 90% of it more or less immediately and that is much better than picking a sub-optimal combination for the particular recording you are listening to.
 
Entreq must be one of the few manufacturers who openly acknowledge that the most expensive is not always the most appropriate.

Agreed though sometimes their secretiveness is a trifle annoying. I asked the dealer for example whether the metals were different in the K2 and Everest. I wasn't asking for detailed atomic formulas and a 200-page dossier on how they were put together. I just wanted to understand if I was seeing a manufacturing variation (i.e issue) between two units or whether - like the boxes - the composition is different. The dealer got on the question right away and a couple of hours later wrote back to advise that Entreq wouldn't say. It is that sort of thing that dedicated fans might let slip but I think it is understandable that such an attitude doesn't endear them in any way to the more objective and sceptical crowds of the audio world (who it might be argued wouldn't be Entreq customers to begin with except for the fact that 14 months ago I was one of them. I might not have taken the dive into the Entreq world at all if the K2 / Everest had been the first products I'd looked at in combination with a box and cable if I had asked the dealer the very same question and got the very same answer).
 
Agreed though sometimes their secretiveness is a trifle annoying. I asked the dealer for example whether the metals were different in the K2 and Everest. I wasn't asking for detailed atomic formulas and a 200-page dossier on how they were put together. I just wanted to understand if I was seeing a manufacturing variation (i.e issue) between two units or whether - like the boxes - the composition is different. The dealer got on the question right away and a couple of hours later wrote back to advise that Entreq wouldn't say. It is that sort of thing that dedicated fans might let slip but I think it is understandable that such an attitude doesn't endear them in any way to the more objective and sceptical crowds of the audio world (who it might be argued wouldn't be Entreq customers to begin with except for the fact that 14 months ago I was one of them. I might not have taken the dive into the Entreq world at all if the K2 / Everest had been the first products I'd looked at in combination with a box and cable if I had asked the dealer the very same question and got the very same answer).

I could not agree with you more. But then from what I gather, PO is quite paranoid about being imitated.
Obviously he has no patents for his offerings. I don' t know if he was the first with his ideas on the market. Now he has competition, even from China. But then, he is not the only one to be this secretive. Just think of the many encapsulated parts in audio electronics. No chance of seeing what is underneath or doing a quick repair yourself. All this, as you rightly suggest, does not inspire confidence. But then, curiosity might win and we do the jump. Often being rewarded, as this thread clearly shows.
 
I could not agree with you more. But then from what I gather, PO is quite paranoid about being imitated.
Obviously he has no patents for his offerings. I don' t know if he was the first with his ideas on the market. Now he has competition, even from China. But then, he is not the only one to be this secretive. Just think of the many encapsulated parts in audio electronics. No chance of seeing what is underneath or doing a quick repair yourself. All this, as you rightly suggest, does not inspire confidence. But then, curiosity might win and we do the jump. Often being rewarded, as this thread clearly shows.

Hi Detlof,

Well for me at any rate the truth is in critical listening to extremely familiar material on a system that is also extremely familiar - save of course for whatever changes one is auditioning (and I always make it a point to only change one thing at once where possible). In such a scenario, Entreq products benefit from the fact that the impact they have on system sonics is roughly comparable to changing a phono cartridge to a superior model and certainly more potent than changing things such as mains cables - in other words, pretty obvious to any half-serious listener. I suppose in such cases I don't get myself worked up in an effort to determine if something I am buying actually does something (lest I be suffering the placebo effect) and is value for money and therefore insist on getting my hands dirty on the technical side of things. I know from experience what certain expenditure levels bring me and thankfully Entreq products are well within the value for money bracket on that particular account. So from my perspective (and mine only), I might forgive the company for playing with their cards glued to their chest but I think there is a whole potential customer base out there who would not be even remotely so accommodating.
 
Hi Detlof,

Well for me at any rate the truth is in critical listening to extremely familiar material on a system that is also extremely familiar - save of course for whatever changes one is auditioning (and I always make it a point to only change one thing at once where possible). In such a scenario, Entreq products benefit from the fact that the impact they have on system sonics is roughly comparable to changing a phono cartridge to a superior model and certainly more potent than changing things such as mains cables - in other words, pretty obvious to any half-serious listener. I suppose in such cases I don't get myself worked up in an effort to determine if something I am buying actually does something (lest I be suffering the placebo effect) and is value for money and therefore insist on getting my hands dirty on the technical side of things. I know from experience what certain expenditure levels bring me and thankfully Entreq products are well within the value for money bracket on that particular account. So from my perspective (and mine only), I might forgive the company for playing with their cards glued to their chest but I think there is a whole potential customer base out there who would not be even remotely so accommodating.

Hello FF,

Must say, that I am quite envious of your way to deal with the problems at hand. A relaxed attitude serves our ears best, I would suppose. Also I would think, as a musician, especially playing a stringed instrument, your ears are much more finely honed than mine.
As for me, I' m a doubting Thomas by nature and the last thing I readily trust are my own ears. Not only
are there physiological as well as psychological variations in our state of being which influence our
perceptions, but also - especially in a highly souped up system - there are much more variables in play
than just the device under test. (State of atmospheric pressure, especially when playing analogue, or variations in el. current come to mind here). So generally for me it might take weeks, not days, until I am really and unshakenly convinced of something. So you can imagine, how grateful I was for your last report and hence seeing that my ears did not fool me. (A folie a deux I feel, can safely be excluded in this case.;) )
 
Last edited:

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu