Entreq Tellus grounding,in england

Purite Audio · Feb 10, 2016

There is a detailed method of how to conduct a level matched unsighted test here,
http://www.puriteaudio.co.uk/blog?page=2

To evaluate the grounding boxes will be far more straight forward, simply a metter of plugging and unplugging the box, the only important factor is that you can't know whether the box is connected or not.
keith.

jkeny · Feb 10, 2016

Barry2013 said:
Thanks JK
Over to you Keith

Ah, I forgot to tell you to watch out for Keith's dodging of the question - oh but I'm too late, I see!!
So, as usual, Keith, dodges, ducks & dives.
We can only conclude that the blind tests he constantly pushes on others ("that's the true test") he avoids doing himself.

amirm · Feb 10, 2016

jkeny said:
Ah, I forgot to tell you to watch out for Keith's dodging of the question - oh but I'm too late, I see!!
So, as usual, Keith, dodges, ducks & dives.
We can only conclude that the blind tests he constantly pushes on others ("that's the true test") he avoids doing himself.

Let's keep the personal commentary out of this thread.

Barry2013 · Feb 10, 2016

Purite Audio said:
There is a detailed method of how to conduct a level matched unsighted test here,
http://www.puriteaudio.co.uk/blog?page=2

To evaluate the grounding boxes will be far more straight forward, simply a metter of plugging and unplugging the box, the only important factor is that you can't know whether the box is connected or not.
keith.

Keith I have six ground boxes to which are attached around 20 ground cables which all work together to improve the sound of my system so what you propose as something simple is simply not the case..
Along with experienced and capable professional and lay reviewers I am happy to rely on what I hear over a period of time as opposed to invariably time limited blind testing which has been shown to have its own weaknesses.
Technical measuring techniques do not feature in the cable reviews I have read. Its the ears that determine the judgement.
Now if others wish to rely upon measurement techniques and blind testing then that is their choice.In my experience however peoples final choices and decisions are determined by what they hear just as yours was earlier with the Cesaro Chopin despite its very poor measurements.
Now I look forward to reading you response to the points put to you by JK.

Blizzard · Feb 10, 2016

Folsom said:
This might mean something if you knew what the Entreq does (if it works). But you can make arguments like a well engineered product shouldn't need high quality AC receptacles to achieve peak performance, too. It's dribble. Furthermore there's a massive subjective clause.

You know that safety ground connects to neutral in the circuit breaker box right? Star grounding is good in general, true. But you make it sound like ground plays some integral part of making a stereo good. The reality is that it's just as often we're trying to prevent it from being a source of noise, and are subject to its existence simply because of safety reasons that may be nearly inapplicable to our appliances. There's quiet a bit of gear out there that doesn't even have safety ground, and sounds great. Ground isn't a magical thing that just sucks bad stuff out of stereos. In fact inside appliances you have to direct (safety) ground so that it doesn't happen through critical devices (a source of noise).

Recording studios work hard to keep ground from being a source of noise, so they actually do the types of things you're talking about with the ground rod. It lowers the noise floor, but it does so just as much because of the noise caused from ground as the noise from other things. It's all back to the requirement of having to have it.

I really don't care either way. My system sounds phenomenal without any of these tweaks. It was engineered to preform well under any power source and ground. I like to keep things simple and engineer the audio gear properly. This way all of these trinkets are a non issue.

Barry2013 · Feb 10, 2016

Blizzard said:
I really don't care either way. My system sounds phenomenal without any of these tweaks. It was engineered to preform well under any power source and ground. I like to keep things simple and engineer the audio gear properly. This way all of these trinkets are a non issue.

Fine. No problem.
That is your choice and I can respect that.
What I don't respect is the lack of respect for other people's choices when those concerned have never tried it.

BE718 · Feb 10, 2016

Barry2013 said:
Don't seem to have had any response from you BE718

Barry I did respond some way back, just as Keith has, regarding the electrical parameters of cables. L,C, R, geometry and dielectric. How they in themselves and their interaction with the circuit they sit within provide ample and reasonable technical explanation as to their different sound. Thats why there is no questioning of them. Entreq on the other hand dont even seem to know what their box does or how it allegedly does it. This has been answered several times now.

BE718 · Feb 10, 2016

jkeny said:
And I told you that the socratic method of learning was applicable - do you not understand what this is?

JK,

We ALL know that you have little electronics knowledge and capability. This has been examined multiple times before. You made statements saying the Intona was a deficient design and were simply asked what those deficiencies were. Your evasion of that question demonstrates again you simply dont know. This was a ploy you were using to discredit some of the individuals contributing to this thread. It backfired.

Your continued disruption of this thread with this nonsense is extremely irritating. Please take you claims about the intona to the intona thread where you can justify what you have said if you are indeed able to.

Barry2013 · Feb 10, 2016

BE718 said:
Barry I did respond some way back, just as Keith has, regarding the electrical parameters of cables. L,C, R, geometry and dielectric. How they in themselves and their interaction with the circuit they sit within provide ample and reasonable technical explanation as to their different sound. Thats why there is no questioning of them. Entreq on the other hand dont even seem to know what their box does or how it allegedly does it. This has been answered several times now.

Not on the MIT and Tara Labs cable grounding

jkeny · Feb 10, 2016

BE718 said:
JK,

We ALL know that you have little electronics knowledge and capability. This has been examined multiple times before. You made statements saying the Intona was a deficient design and were simply asked what those deficiencies were. Your evasion of that question demonstrates again you simply dont know. This was a ploy you were using to discredit some of the individuals contributing to this thread. It backfired.

Your continued disruption of this thread with this nonsense is extremely irritating. Please take you claims about the intona to the intona thread where you can justify what you have said if you are indeed able to.

I'm sure this also warrants a warning about personal comments, Amir

Seeing as you seem adrift in trying to understand design decisions of the Intona, let me give you a clue (but it's the last one) - what clock was chosen & why, where is it located. Now let's see what you can make of this?

mauidan · Feb 11, 2016

BE718 · Feb 11, 2016

jkeny said:
I'm sure this also warrants a warning about personal comments, Amir

Seeing as you seem adrift in trying to understand design decisions of the Intona, let me give you a clue (but it's the last one) - what clock was chosen & why, where is it located. Now let's see what you can make of this?

JK, you have re-entered this thread and forum after an absence with the sole purpose of being disruptive and having a go at certain individuals. There is only one here that deserves warnings.

...and you still insist on talking about the Intona in this thread when you have been asked to take it to the intona thread.

The CEO of Intona explained in the text I pointed you too the reasoning behind the clock choice and that they measured the eye pattern and checked jitter levels. He explained why they didnt change with increasing clock jitter. You failed to notice or understand the explanation.

You have failed again JK. Now please desist and take it to the Intona thread.

BE718 · Feb 11, 2016

Barry2013 said:
Not on the MIT and Tara Labs cable grounding

Sorry Barry I am not familiar with these. Please supply links/explanations of what they are doing.

EDIT

I have just visited the MIT site. OMG, I fell off my chair, not only at the prices but also some of the technical BS I read.

" Poles of Articulation, named after the fact that every audio cable has a single
point where it is most efficient at storing and transporting energy."

Almost sounds like a very odd way of describing impedance matching, which isnt of any importance for an audio interconnect....but I really have no idea what they are on about.

Looking at the various boxes with controls attached to some of the cables, yes it looks like they are deliberately designed to change the sound.

That I'm afraid Barry needs to be reserved for another thread.

esldude · Feb 11, 2016

BE718 said:
Sorry Barry I am not familiar with these. Please supply links/explanations of what they are doing.

EDIT

I have just visited the MIT site. OMG, I fell off my chair, not only at the prices but also some of the technical BS I read.

That I'm afraid Barry needs to reserved for another thread.

Some of the earliest MIT cable with the boxes on each end were special. The box nearest the amp simply fit over the cable and was potted with epoxy. Nothing in it at all. The other end I believe has a resistor and cap across the leads. I have one of their patented Digital Terminator digi-cables. The network is a coax cable with a one ohm resistor in series with the center lead. Which makes it directional of course.

From MIT's webpage on the cable I have:
MIT's patented Digital Terminator Technology—Eliminates jitter-based distortions found in all other cables, delivering natural timbre & precise imaging.? New micro-componentry networks located in RCA housing eliminate need for network box.

Funny that micro-componentry looks like a plain old 1 ohm metal film resistor.

Please forgive my off topic posting.

BE718 · Feb 11, 2016

esldude said:
Some of the earliest MIT cable with the boxes on each end were special. The box nearest the amp simply fit over the cable and was potted with epoxy. Nothing in it at all. The other end I believe has a resistor and cap across the leads. I have one of their patented Digital Terminator digi-cables. The network is a coax cable with a one ohm resistor in series with the center lead. Which makes it directional of course.

From MIT's webpage on the cable I have:
MIT's patented Digital Terminator Technology—Eliminates jitter-based distortions found in all other cables, delivering natural timbre & precise imaging.? New micro-componentry networks located in RCA housing eliminate need for network box.

View attachment 25710

Funny that micro-componentry looks like a plain old 1 ohm metal film resistor.

Please forgive my off topic posting.

So you are confirming that MIT are indeed changing R&C to alter the sound of the cable.

Not sure what they think the resistor is doing. Using simple 75ohm coax terminating into a 75 ohm load in the DAC is all you need.

Blizzard · Feb 11, 2016

esldude said:
Some of the earliest MIT cable with the boxes on each end were special. The box nearest the amp simply fit over the cable and was potted with epoxy. Nothing in it at all. The other end I believe has a resistor and cap across the leads. I have one of their patented Digital Terminator digi-cables. The network is a coax cable with a one ohm resistor in series with the center lead. Which makes it directional of course.

From MIT's webpage on the cable I have:
MIT's patented Digital Terminator Technology—Eliminates jitter-based distortions found in all other cables, delivering natural timbre & precise imaging.? New micro-componentry networks located in RCA housing eliminate need for network box.

View attachment 25710

Funny that micro-componentry looks like a plain old 1 ohm metal film resistor.

Please forgive my off topic posting.

Well that's a 2 cent resistor, much better than the 0.5 cent resistor used in the $1000 cable.

esldude · Feb 11, 2016

BE718 said:
So you are confirming that MIT are indeed changing R&C to alter the sound of the cable.

Not sure what they think the resistor is doing. Using simple 75ohm coax terminating into a 75 ohm load in the DAC is all you need.

They tell us it is eliminating jitter based distortions found in all other cables. Delivering timbre and precise imaging.

I suppose another funny part is this being covered by a patent. So you shall not be adding one of your own to your RG6 cable.

spazmatron · Feb 11, 2016

Does a better job of eliminating respect, though they can't claim a patent on that.

Rodney Gold · Feb 11, 2016

The only way you will get a 75 ohm impedance cable is to use BNC .. RCA.. due to construction will never be 75 ohm impedance
whether it will matter or not is another discussion

esldude · Feb 11, 2016

Rodney Gold said:
The only way you will get a 75 ohm impedance cable is to use BNC .. RCA.. due to construction will never be 75 ohm impedance
whether it will matter or not is another discussion

Very true, but RCA also isn't 74 ohm, needing just another ohm to fix it all up.

Entreq Tellus grounding,in england

banned

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

Banned

VIP/Donor

Banned

VIP/Donor

New Member

New Member

VIP/Donor

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

Member Sponsor

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Banned

New Member

Banned

Member

New Member

Similar threads