I only have the Silver Eartha. All equipment were connected to the Silver TellUs with Silver Ertha.
Entreq Tellus grounding
- Thread starter spiritofmusic
- Start date
I only have the Silver Eartha. All equipment were connected to the Silver TellUs with Silver Ertha.
Thanks for that.
People have reported that earthing the amp separately can be beneficial.
The Silver does work well in many settings but it would be worth trying the Apollo if you have not already tried that.
I've pretty much settled on grounding my 8 components to a Silver Tellus, and the Silver Cleanus separately to it's own Olympus Mini. However I have a dilemma that if I want to maybe ground additional components in future e.g. a dsd dac like the Lampi 7, server etc, I'm out of capacity on my Silver Tellus, and it might be more practical to get a second Silver Tellus to initially exclusively ground the Silver Cleanus, but w/the extra potential capacity for future grounding needs. The RRPs of Silver Tellus and Olympus Mini are v. similar in the UK, so this remains my final grounding decision (I'm now turning my attention to maxing my system capabilities w/Shun Mook diamond resonators, and getting the most out of mods to my Zu Def4 spkrs).
hi spirit,thanks for chiming in.. what components do you have grounded to your silver tellus ? any chance the digital and analog components are there as well to that 1 silver tellus ? thanks!
Sounds, if you read my posts it's everything connected to the S. Tellus, 2x pre, phono, cdp, 2x monos, and soon to be, 2x Zu sub amps. If I go for a second S. Tellus I could separate components btwn the two, as well as ground the S. Cleanus. But it may be the S. Cleanus grounding is best kept away from the rest of the system via Olympus Mini. Only way to tell is w/an a-b.
Maril555, they certainly are. So much so that my Nat Utopia pre which isn't dual mono like my previous Audion Quattro, STILL benefits from two Apollo ground leads. Btw, FYI I have been listening intensively at a friend's on three occasions now to a pair of Gen 2 AG Duo spkrs like your's, and am mightily impressed (not going to swap out the Zu's JUST yet 'though, LOL!). As w/my other successfully grounded components, Entreq works it's magic on the Nats by helping clarify matters, sifting out grunge, and allowing tone, space and warmth to expand, hence revealing more detail and musician's intent, but not at the expense of any artificial spotlighting.
Could someone please post a link to objective measurements or ABX DBT that demonstrate the improvement these grounding devices allegedly make?
I am a classically trained engineer and the glowing comments and descriptions of these devices sound preposterous to me.
I have personally contributed to the ground design of analog and digital equipment and none of those designs ever required an external box full of inert materials to quiet them down. Worst case all we had to do is move some copper traces around on a PCB or re-route an IC internally. Most common approach was to separate analog and digital ground domains into discrete planes/conductors and star-connect them at a common reference point, making sure any interconnect impedance is minimized.
If these grounding boxes are necessary to optimize performance why did my training never discuss them? Why did my work within industry, including work I did with A/D or D/A, not require them? How do they reach down to the component level inside a pre-amp or DAC etc. and address thorny signal integrity issues that the engineers already struggled with and optimized away?
Similar questions regarding any power conditioning. Internal regulation should handle that where it could bring improvements.
I would love to see some objective measurements that confirm the benefits. Even in cases with severe EMI it seems unlikely that big boxes of stuff connected via huge cables does anything at all. EMI is notoriously difficult to address and if it is an issue it usually requires some refined expertise and design of experiments with appropriately chosen filters that are matched to the problem, not haphazardly connected (but attractively finished) wooden grounding/conditioning boxes.
I am just not getting to the suspension of disbelief point from this thread, merely cringing over the implications of the price tag.
Anyone?
(sorry, not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just want to understand)
I am a classically trained engineer and the glowing comments and descriptions of these devices sound preposterous to me.
I have personally contributed to the ground design of analog and digital equipment and none of those designs ever required an external box full of inert materials to quiet them down. Worst case all we had to do is move some copper traces around on a PCB or re-route an IC internally. Most common approach was to separate analog and digital ground domains into discrete planes/conductors and star-connect them at a common reference point, making sure any interconnect impedance is minimized.
If these grounding boxes are necessary to optimize performance why did my training never discuss them? Why did my work within industry, including work I did with A/D or D/A, not require them? How do they reach down to the component level inside a pre-amp or DAC etc. and address thorny signal integrity issues that the engineers already struggled with and optimized away?
Similar questions regarding any power conditioning. Internal regulation should handle that where it could bring improvements.
I would love to see some objective measurements that confirm the benefits. Even in cases with severe EMI it seems unlikely that big boxes of stuff connected via huge cables does anything at all. EMI is notoriously difficult to address and if it is an issue it usually requires some refined expertise and design of experiments with appropriately chosen filters that are matched to the problem, not haphazardly connected (but attractively finished) wooden grounding/conditioning boxes.
I am just not getting to the suspension of disbelief point from this thread, merely cringing over the implications of the price tag.
Anyone?
(sorry, not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just want to understand)
Josie,
I just see the box as a point for signal reference ground, do you agree RCA (unbalanced analogue audio) is a compromised design in terms of shield/signal return and ground?
Maybe it behaves like a signal reference grid *shrug*.
That said you do make good points.
Cheers
Orb
I just see the box as a point for signal reference ground, do you agree RCA (unbalanced analogue audio) is a compromised design in terms of shield/signal return and ground?
Maybe it behaves like a signal reference grid *shrug*.
That said you do make good points.
Cheers
Orb
Josie I can understand the frustration in your post about the benefits (or otherwise) of Entreq grounding products.
To the best of my knowledge there is no publicly available objective evidence of how or why they work be it Entreq or Tripoint. This may be for reasons of commercial confidentiality, which would be completely understandable, or for whatever other reasons people may speculate about. My technical knowledge is limited so I am spared your understandable frustrations.
What I can say, however, is that I have a good and reliable pair of ears which on my very first experience of an Entreq Minimus connected to my system wrought an immediate and clearly audible improvement in sound quality and continued to produce improvements as I added a Tellus, Silver Tellus, Silver Minimus for the Entreq speaker cables and then a Tellus Atlantis for the two Silver Tellus. I am using Entreq Apollo balanced i/cs and for me they are an absolutely successful investment. The reduction in the noise floor, the improved resolution and communication of sound and emotion is so apparent.
Now obviously you have every right to be sceptical of such claims but other WBF members including those with some of the best systems in the world have similarly testified to the benefits of grounding both by Entreq (the more affordable option) and Tripoint.
All I can suggest is you try it and if you have the same experience that we have had it may not help you to understand why it works but you will have the enjoyment of better sound quality at a very cost effective price.
To the best of my knowledge there is no publicly available objective evidence of how or why they work be it Entreq or Tripoint. This may be for reasons of commercial confidentiality, which would be completely understandable, or for whatever other reasons people may speculate about. My technical knowledge is limited so I am spared your understandable frustrations.
What I can say, however, is that I have a good and reliable pair of ears which on my very first experience of an Entreq Minimus connected to my system wrought an immediate and clearly audible improvement in sound quality and continued to produce improvements as I added a Tellus, Silver Tellus, Silver Minimus for the Entreq speaker cables and then a Tellus Atlantis for the two Silver Tellus. I am using Entreq Apollo balanced i/cs and for me they are an absolutely successful investment. The reduction in the noise floor, the improved resolution and communication of sound and emotion is so apparent.
Now obviously you have every right to be sceptical of such claims but other WBF members including those with some of the best systems in the world have similarly testified to the benefits of grounding both by Entreq (the more affordable option) and Tripoint.
All I can suggest is you try it and if you have the same experience that we have had it may not help you to understand why it works but you will have the enjoyment of better sound quality at a very cost effective price.
"Improved communication of sound and emotion." ...I like that. 
"Improved emotion" ...some of us we find it in 'euphoric sound'. ...Euphony.
"Improved emotion" ...some of us we find it in 'euphoric sound'. ...Euphony.
I don't know what a "classically trained" engineer is but I suspect it is EE. I know full well from my having gone through several EE courses that engineering is only meant to allow practical use in designs. Ohm law will allow designing a working circuit.
As to measurements, did you ever take them in your designs? I have take measurements of continuity in amps and found it from the power supply board to the IEC chassis as well as to the circuit board. But running a direct ground wire to a solid copper binding post as well as from the circuit board and to the toroidal transformer greatly improved the grounding to the Tripoint ground unit. I took reading of the resistance, but my meter only goes down to .1 ohm. I think good scientists would look for answers to why this would be true.
Cheryl, I share your disbelief from the outside looking in. I think it's a major issue that v.little of what's purported to work is explained by the manufacturers in any meaningful way. Re Entreq and Tripoint, one can't fit a cigarette paper btwn them re zero disclosure. The conjecture that there is a miasma of rf/emi/hash swirling around components, btwn components and the mains, and in reverse, a sort of eddy/sluice of energy sapping and detail obscuring pollution, doesn't seem too unreasonable. I suspect these grounding devices siphon off such nasties. But I can't prove it. And how you measure it, well maybe you can tell us!
All I know is that I was in a state of highly-coiled skepticism when the Entreq guy came over, arms tightly folded and brow furrowed. To his credit he made no attempt at hard sell, if anything was self effacing, just asked me to listen. And the rest is history. At intervals since, I have disconnected and reconnected Entreq, at Purite's request w/me out of the room, w/the same dramatic results.
I am not claiming any fullproof blind comparisons here, just that the effect seems to be repeatable, and my system is the poorer w/out Entreq.
All I know is that I was in a state of highly-coiled skepticism when the Entreq guy came over, arms tightly folded and brow furrowed. To his credit he made no attempt at hard sell, if anything was self effacing, just asked me to listen. And the rest is history. At intervals since, I have disconnected and reconnected Entreq, at Purite's request w/me out of the room, w/the same dramatic results.
I am not claiming any fullproof blind comparisons here, just that the effect seems to be repeatable, and my system is the poorer w/out Entreq.
Last edited:
Well I left the room so this was as controlled as possible. Anyhow, that's in the past. It works for me. As do direct drive tt's, linear tracking arms, SET amps, unobtrusive x/overs, Shun Mook resonance control, careful cable choice. Maybe even room acoustical treatments and dsp l/t. I don't expect the majority of these can be proved to work. I remain clear that I hear as much that I don't like as much as I do, so I'm not a sap in all things subjective, ie more expensive Entreq options in my system sound worse, quite a few pricey cables do nothing for me, I like a lot of horns but the total synergy is often lacking.
it's just like floride
and requires a belief in what your ears tell you. the first step of trying it in one's system is an open mind.no arms are twisted or guns to heads are used.
sometimes it's hard to get beyond one's 'training' or preconceived notions. better to listen to more music.
here is a nice spot for a person of your sensibilities. you will feel right at home. item #8 on terms of service will make you feel warm and fuzzy.
Last edited:
it's just like floride
no arms are twisted or guns to heads are used. I rarely enjoy systems put together by 'classically trained engineers.'
sometimes it's hard to get beyond one's 'training' or preconceived notions. better to listen to more music.
here is a nice spot for a person of your sensibilities. you will feel right at home. item #8 on terms of service will make you feel warm and fuzzy.
What a crazy place. The only acceptable form of evidence is ABX/DBT testing. And measurement graphs and or waveform differences are not acceptable forms of evidence. As Amir has pointed out many times, ABX is subjective testing. And actual objective measurements is not accepted. Yeah I definitely don't understand the POV.
Check out the Admin Dibrom user profile. Interesting.
Gentleman, I concur w/you both. But I can understand Cheryl's increduelity at what is touted, how great the impvts are, the costs involved, and the totally "Black Box" security of disclosure of information of the manufacturers involved. Having spent £10k/$15k on Entreq, I'm a l/t happy user. But an outsider looking in...
Agreed. While the benefits of common grounding are very well known and practiced in the telecom and proaudio industry, the prices and exaggerated claims common to high-end audio can be suspect. But even measurements showing a reduced noise floor or decreased inter-component ground potentials would not be accepted by the site that Mike referenced.
I think we always have to be mindful of the standards of the scientific method. Hypothesis testing entails having a null hypothesis that two variables are not interrelated. By rejecting the null hypothesis with good data of valid measures of each variable, we lend creditability to the belief that the two variables are related. The real problem with audio is that we don't have valid measures of what sounds good nor of what good amplification is or what good grounding is. This is further aggravated by unshared standard of what people like and would call "good sound." Double blind testing should give a profile of disparities of what people prefer. I see little value in this. Also people engaged in double blind testing or different from people just listening to music, so it is not isomorphic. It is a false test. I once spent a evening with many designers and audiophiles in LA doing double blind listing to various preamps. We rated each and later averaged the rating to conclude that a Bozak preamp was best. I borrowed one given that finding and found it sucked. My conclusion was that even well conceived double blind testing was worthless. Then there is "same/different double blind testing so cherished by some psychologists. You listen to 30 seconds of music and then have to say whether it is the same audio piece or different from that coming before; Here again this has nothing to do with listening to music; it is a test. There also is the fallacy of saying that an hypothesis can be proven by the results. That is logical nonsense. Statistically, we can only reject an hypothesis and never can affirm one.
In short double blind testing and even worse ABX/DBT is worthless.
Then there is engineers thinking that mankind knows all in Ohm's law and other standards or "laws" of design. Good scientists should get off the asses and test to understand why grounding matters and how it can be better achieved.
Our ears have served us well in surviving against threats to us. THD has never been crucial to our hearing; is it to our music reproduction? What does "sounds good" or sounds "real" mean in measures? What is a valid measure of this? As a Supreme Court justice once said, "I know it when I see it," I would say I know it when I hear it.
In short double blind testing and even worse ABX/DBT is worthless.
Then there is engineers thinking that mankind knows all in Ohm's law and other standards or "laws" of design. Good scientists should get off the asses and test to understand why grounding matters and how it can be better achieved.
Our ears have served us well in surviving against threats to us. THD has never been crucial to our hearing; is it to our music reproduction? What does "sounds good" or sounds "real" mean in measures? What is a valid measure of this? As a Supreme Court justice once said, "I know it when I see it," I would say I know it when I hear it.
