Entreq Tellus grounding
- Thread starter spiritofmusic
- Start date
while i had some very slight interest in why my single Eartha Atlantis cable plugged into my digital seemed to cause issues, i'm likely not the right person to ask to measure anything. and that's not just cuz i don't know how. it's also because i don't care about it.
i'm not trying to make snide comments and be disrespectful. my comments are not intended to be personal toward you in any way. and i don't want to pull/push the Entreq thread into a measurements/objective/subjective cesspool.....of which the whole forum is littered with ad nauseum.
and i respect you are simply trying to be helpful to the participants.
but i'm just not your measurement guy. i mentally filter out posts with measurments and run fleeing from measurment threads.
listening and commenting is my deal.
Last edited:
+1 Mike. Subjectivity is all in the high end listening experience. If it was all about measurements, I'd have a system w/Halcro, Magico, Technics SL1200, ATC, Devialet, a Yamaha receiver from the 80s. But I don't.
"The Fluke 87V records Min/Max/Average and has a Min/Max alert that automatically captures variations. The Relative mode removes test lead interference from low-ohms measurements."
If it couldn't measure any difference, you could add a low ohm adaptor, but I doubt any of the Entreq users would be interested.
Mauidan, I can't help w/measurements. I was happy to run a blinded trial w/risk of dropping my pants in public had I been proved to be overly suggestible, but it wasn't taken up.
Surely there must be some measurement guys who are happy to give Entreq a home trial, and do the requisite experimentation. It'll be down to them to post their findings. Like Mike, I'm happy to post my subjective views. I can only see this as a dead end unless a measurements guy sets up an Entreq trial, w/a variety of leads/ground box, and does the a-b's.
Surely there must be some measurement guys who are happy to give Entreq a home trial, and do the requisite experimentation. It'll be down to them to post their findings. Like Mike, I'm happy to post my subjective views. I can only see this as a dead end unless a measurements guy sets up an Entreq trial, w/a variety of leads/ground box, and does the a-b's.
The best resolution of the 87V is 100 mohm - we can expect that grounding cables should have resistances of less than 50 mohm.
The Entreq developer owns Wilson Alexandria loudspeakers, Halcro amplifiers and dCS digital products. All very revealing, but IMHO a too exact system - perhaps it is why he went on the development of such products!
I doubt you'll find any serious measurements guys ordering the Entreq gear.
Entreq's marketing of these grounding cables is very interesting. They go from copper to silver, then more expense silver(Apollo), then double silver(Atlantis), I guess we'll see a triple silver (the Hecate?).
There is a difference between power grounding and signal grounding and how they are optomised. In my experience, “star grounding” the power side has sounded the best for me. I have gone from single high powered dedicated circuit to multiple high powered dedicated circuits and back to single circuits many times over the years. And now prefer one high power dedicated circuit with specifically designed and executed “star ground” wiring (all outlets with equal length wire connected at one point). The music is powerful and coherent. I want all power supplies to “see” the same ground point and potential. For me it is a “timing” issue
Signal ground is another issue. Based on what I am reading in this thread, performance is following a logical progression. And “star grounding” is not necessarily the best route for signal grounding. This is what I think:
1. We want a signal ground with the highest potential we can afford.
2. We want a cable that connects the component’s signal ground to the ground potential with the least resistance (and time lag, ie: group delay in my opinion).
3. Digital circuits produce a lot of noise and likely cross-contaminate analog components. Star grounding is probably not an optimum solution, so a separate grounding box will likely sound better. Many systems will likely be OK with one box, but not all, especially “Uber” systems, which expose all differences (the good and the bad).
4. True, dual differentially balanced circuits, will likely sound better with two cables, one for each channel. This makes sense, as it is essentially dual-mono, connecting the ground to one channel does not improve the other, creating a weird effect. True balanced designs usually require two of everything.
5. Connecting two truly balanced analog sources to one grounding box even with high ground potential, may still cross-contaminate through the star ground (everything connected to a single box), because even ultra small resulting differential in noise (ground loop) is considered as signal in the balanced circuit and passed as SIGNAL.
6. It is no wonder to me that the ultimate solution and performance is to have one super high potential single point connection for each component, such as the Olympos. And heaven forbid, one for each channel (left and right).
7. Big question: Is the new Olympos with single post (and high ground potential) better than the Silver Tellus or Silver Tellus plus Atlantis Tellus when used for only one component?
Just my thoughts.
Signal ground is another issue. Based on what I am reading in this thread, performance is following a logical progression. And “star grounding” is not necessarily the best route for signal grounding. This is what I think:
1. We want a signal ground with the highest potential we can afford.
2. We want a cable that connects the component’s signal ground to the ground potential with the least resistance (and time lag, ie: group delay in my opinion).
3. Digital circuits produce a lot of noise and likely cross-contaminate analog components. Star grounding is probably not an optimum solution, so a separate grounding box will likely sound better. Many systems will likely be OK with one box, but not all, especially “Uber” systems, which expose all differences (the good and the bad).
4. True, dual differentially balanced circuits, will likely sound better with two cables, one for each channel. This makes sense, as it is essentially dual-mono, connecting the ground to one channel does not improve the other, creating a weird effect. True balanced designs usually require two of everything.
5. Connecting two truly balanced analog sources to one grounding box even with high ground potential, may still cross-contaminate through the star ground (everything connected to a single box), because even ultra small resulting differential in noise (ground loop) is considered as signal in the balanced circuit and passed as SIGNAL.
6. It is no wonder to me that the ultimate solution and performance is to have one super high potential single point connection for each component, such as the Olympos. And heaven forbid, one for each channel (left and right).
7. Big question: Is the new Olympos with single post (and high ground potential) better than the Silver Tellus or Silver Tellus plus Atlantis Tellus when used for only one component?
Just my thoughts.
Last edited:
Spirit you mention isolation , ENTREQ have their Lynx feet that mesh well , ever tried them ?
Excellent summation of the users' experience so far with the Entreq gear. And I must admit that I am curious about the big question in #7, although I am ready to bet that grounding dual-mono preamps with two runs of Atlantis to a 5-post Olympos with ultimately win the race
But seriously, after my experience with the phono stage, I am re-evaluating wheter the best approach is indeed to ground multiple components to a larger box instead of having multiple smaller boxes.
I believe that the Polish Entreq distributor has advised against using the somewhat compliant Lynx feet under the ground boxes.
Excellent summation of the users' experience so far with the Entreq gear. And I must admit that I am curious about the big question in #7, although I am ready to bet that grounding dual-mono preamps with two runs of Atlantis to a 5-post Olympos with ultimately win the race
But seriously, after my experience with the phono stage, I am re-evaluating wheter the best approach is indeed to ground multiple components to a larger box instead of having multiple smaller boxes.
Joe Pittman is my friend and my Entreq/Stillpoint dealer, and has helped me with my Furutech GTX-D duplex outlets and installation and other products.
his company is;
http://www.kosmic.us/entreq.html
I have been a fan of mechanical grounding for many years. So like electrical grounding, I want mechanical energy to go to a high "ground" potential (like mother earth). Therefore, I've preferred metal feet with direct connection to the support structure. I like Sillpoints because they are rigid (providing a low mechanical resistance to mechanical ground), but also dampen energy (in both directions). It's likely Stilpoints will work well under the ground boxes. I think Stllpoints will be demonstrating the Entreq products at CES with the full Monty Stillpoints products. Maybe even the new "insane" Ultra 6's...
Last edited:
Totally agree...we tried Stillpoints under the Entreq grounding boxes. Great improvement despite how good Entreq already is...
Thanks Microstrip.
Very interesting in the context of the various demands for measurements.
I take it therefore that the commonly used and readily available voltmeters would not be capable of performing the requisite measurements thereby invalidating the utility of the measurement brigades demands.
Assuming that is the case it suggests that their claimed technical knowledge is not what they have been representing it to be and that had we acceded to their requests it would have been a futile exercise.
Reproducing music is a complex problem. Ohms law is important, but it does not account for every variable. What many are not considering is the concept of time distortion. Just like having ultra short signal paths in a component's design, it seams logical to have perfect virtual grounds as close to a component as possible, shortening reaction time. I suspect that in addition to lowering the noise floor, the Entreq system is more coherent. A musical note only exists in time, taking a picture of it at one point in time is meaningless. A complex note consists of the initial attack, sustain and decay. The closer we can recreate the notes, the more realistic and convincing the playback. This is of course over simplification on my part and again my opinion.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |