Entreq Tellus grounding

[dmnc02]

?????? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ????????? ????· ?????????? ??? ??? ???? ????????? ????? ????? ??????? ???????, ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????, ??? ??, ????? ??? ??? ????, ???? ??????· ????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????????? ?????, ??? ? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???????.

"I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know." Socrates (quoted by Plato)

 

[spiritofmusic]

Thanks boys, not too far off topic I hope. Ked, my comment was a personal, non audio one. I'm getting my mojo back. Happy to be in the grounding camp. Ok, enough of my skirting w/the endlessly frustrating and inconclusive Morbius strip that is trying to reconcile objectivism w. subjectivism.

 

[bonzo75]

Lol can't believe I am almost Socrates

 

[TBG]

I must misunderstand. Does the Entreq not have a ground to the ac mains? If so, it is ridiculous to not have greater resistance at the Entreq than at the ground rod. The wire in between has to have some resistance, whether or not one has the Entreq. I suspect that the Entreq is keeping anything of one component ground from getting to any other component.

 

[spiritofmusic]

DISCLAIMER, I know nothing LOL!!! It seems that rf/emi/hash/nasties etc are swirling around the system, a little like water in a tidal pool, or in a sluice, series of river-based locks etc - maybe a v.wild analogy, but as all analogies it's prob a reasonable facsimile of the truth. This swirling is from components back into the mains, from the mains into the system, and any other 2 way process you can imagine. Maybe Entreq is channeling swirling of nasties from components away from power cords/the mains, and to a common sink. This means that there is eddying from the mains back into the system minus a lot extra from the components themselves. If Entreq then isolates hash from going back in forth from component to component, some kind of calm is being sustained. Maybe Cleanus at the mains, esp when grounded back to S. Tellus attacks the isolation from more of the mains side, S. Tellus more from the components' side.

 

[Barry2013]

I can appreciate how those of a technical disposition may be intrigued to establish how the Entreq grounding actually works. but we can hardly expect Per to share that information and thereby harm his commercial interests. Ditto Miguel and Tripoint.
I have and can hear the improvements in common with many others including WBF members who have only been able to try Entreq very recently.
I am entirely secure in trusting my ears and those who are sceptical despite never having tried it have no credibility for me whatever theoretical arguments they cite.
There are far too many supporters of the benefits of Entreq grounding across the world for it to be credibly explained by expectation bias.

 

[GuillaumeB]

You have to be unsighted whilst someone else disconnects and reconnects, the whole point is that you do not know when the box is hooked up.
Keith.

I must say that whenever I've tried these blind tests I've always felt rather unsettled and the fact that I can't see has affected my concentration, there is a sense of being under pressure and having to get it right. In fact even now if I'm listening to music and I close my eyes the music seems to change in an odd way. Even sighted tests where you are played 30 second snippets I find most disconcerting too.

I like to evaluate things in my own time and without any kind of external pressure. The thing is hi-fi is a hobby and a pleasurable pastime. If I'm listening to a new component I like to savour it and admire its physical presence on a rack, to me that is part of the experience. I also know that what can sound amazing at first can sometimes become rather tiresome, that's why I like to take my time. Lots of time!

Cheers

Guillaume

 

[dmnc02]

In this particular case we are not seeking an evaluation, we are just trying to see whether there is a discernible difference with the equipment connected.
Barry you cannot trust your ears, audible memory is extremely short.
Keith.

Frankly, I was hoping that your promise in post #477 was worth something. You have made this point ad nauseam.

Blind A/B testing of the Entreq is not easy to do, since the effect builds up gradually over a period of days and it is most obvious upon disconnecting it from the system after a few days.

 

[dmnc02]

Why would an earthing effect build up over several days?
If you have an earth loop hum, and you lift an earth the hum instantly disappears it doesn't take several days to disappear.
Keith.

I have no clue, but this does not preclude my ability to accept what my ears tell me upon multiple (sighted) trials.

 

[mauidan]

I can appreciate how those of a technical disposition may be intrigued to establish how the Entreq grounding actually works. but we can hardly expect Per to share that information and thereby harm his commercial interests. Ditto Miguel and Tripoint.
I have and can hear the improvements in common with many others including WBF members who have only been able to try Entreq very recently.
I am entirely secure in trusting my ears and those who are sceptical despite never having tried it have no credibility for me whatever theoretical arguments they cite.
There are far too many supporters of the benefits of Entreq grounding across the world for it to be credibly explained by expectation bias.

If Per is concerned about protecting commerical interests, he should apply for a US Patent.

Suggest you read the posts by Davehrab and Atmasphere (Ralph)in this thread:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?htech&1376746239&openflup&26&4#26

I'd really like to try one of the Entreq grounding boxes, but there's no dealer in my area to borrow one from.

Looking forward to Mike L's comments about his Entreq experience.

 

[dmnc02]

If Per is concerned about protecting commerical interests, he should apply for a US Patent.

Suggest you read the posts by Davehrab and Atmasphere (Ralph)in this thread:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?htech&1376746239&openflup&26&4#26

I'd really like to try one of the Entreq grounding boxes, but there's no dealer in my area to borrow one from.

Looking forward to Mike L's comments about his Entreq experience.

Secrecy is a much better protection, if it can be preserved.

 

[mauidan]

Secrecy is a much better protection, if it can be preserved.

That's true until someone buys your product and takes it apart.

 

[dmnc02]

That's true until someone buys your product and takes it apart.

That why I said "if it can be preserved". I am sure Entreq has carefully considered this issue and undertaken what they consider to be the best course of action.

 

[dmnc02]

That is precisely why the test has to be unsighted, sorry to bang on.
Keith.

I miss the logical implication. Can we just agree to disagree and move on?

 

[TBG]

That is precisely why the test has to be unsighted, sorry to bang on.
Keith.

I see no reason to argue against "blind" tests as long as that is all there is. Thirty second exposures to music, as is often done in psychology, is invalid. Also devices that allow easy switching back and forth often add distortion and muddy the comparison. Even the task and peoples' focusing on comparing switch causes a different evaluation than listening in ones own listening room.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Keith is in danger of becoming a total laughing stock. I offered him a blind trial. I go into another room, he manages the disconnect/connect or connect/disconnect, and I tell him when Entreq is in or not on playing music. We can do it in reverse, where he is blinded and I control Entreq a-b. I'll have no idea whether he's left Entreq in, or taken it out, and we a-b tracks. Can't say fairer than that. He insults me by ignoring my offer after endless posts saying blind trials should be done, but saying we're all fooling ourselves by their absence in evaluation. But he won't take part when I offer the golden opportunity. Or someone else should do it.
Keith, you don't have the courage of your convictions. I believe you're an armchair philosopher, happy to tear other people down, but won't face up when the ball is back in your court.

 

[Barry2013]

I must say that whenever I've tried these blind tests I've always felt rather unsettled and the fact that I can't see has affected my concentration, there is a sense of being under pressure and having to get it right. In fact even now if I'm listening to music and I close my eyes the music seems to change in an odd way. Even sighted tests where you are played 30 second snippets I find most disconcerting too.

I like to evaluate things in my own time and without any kind of external pressure. The thing is hi-fi is a hobby and a pleasurable pastime. If I'm listening to a new component I like to savour it and admire its physical presence on a rack, to me that is part of the experience. I also know that what can sound amazing at first can sometimes become rather tiresome, that's why I like to take my time. Lots of time!

Cheers

Guillaume

Happily with nearly every Entreq addition or upgrade the improvement has been immediately apparen(Keith please note) and continued to improve. My judgement of the efficacy of the Receivus, which had not been fulfilled initially, was restored when I revised the connection as described earlier. Again the sound immediately improved.
Having said that though I do agree with your approach. I have certainly experienced other changes which initially sounded better but which on further listening had merely changed the sound and not improved it.
In my experience your ears go through a learning experience over a variable period of time and you learn to discern what is and what is not an improvement as opposed to a change in sound. This may well be less of an issue for practising musicians but talking with industry audio people I have been surprised at how many musicians have really basic systems . The explanation a number gave me was that the musicians appear to be able to hear what they want to hear and are less concerned at the actual reproduced sound quality.
It's totally at odds with what I expected namely that the limitations of a basic system would be to them so obvious and unsatisfactory, but there we are.
It would be interesting to know if that has been the experience of other members.

 

[dmnc02]

Perhaps this will help,
http://iosr.surrey.ac.uk/projects/ias/papers/Zielinski.pdf

Keith

Just out of curiosity, did you even read the paper you linked?

Other than a generic mention of the expectation bias and blind listening tests in section 3.3, the focus of the paper is on hedonic judgements. Section 6 ("Proposed Solutions") makes no mention of blind testing. Instead, the key recommendation is that participants in evaluation tests be asked to evaluate the sonic character of what they hear, rather than just whether they like it or not. This is exactly what everyone of the several people who have tried the Entreq and posted their impression on this thread has done. If you pay attention to those descriptions, there is a remarkable similarity in what people have experienced in the context of very different systems.

If you want to discuss hedonic judgements, why don't you start a thread on this topic?

 

[bonzo75]

Lol. Keith seems to be up against someone who can read better than him, debate better than him, observe better than him, experiments more than him, and hears better than him.

Seriously, I am calling this fight off on KO

 

[bonzo75]

Btw, I have told Keith multiple times I have blind tested Shun Mooks, and that how do people across the world who use them, have the same expectation bias from them? And why does their expectation bias say the benefits are A, B and C consistently and not E, F, G?