Entreq Tellus grounding,in england

Status
Not open for further replies.

BE718

New Member
Sep 30, 2015
218
1
0
Yet I went to the trouble of posting two sound files - a high res recording made directly from my DAC analogue output - one with the base model Entreq connected and one without. The differences between the two files are obvious. Far more than you hear from a cable upgrade. .

Hi fiddle,

Can you post the link to those files and describe in detail the setup. Also could you record a period of silence without anything playing with the box in an out of circuit and post that.
 

BE718

New Member
Sep 30, 2015
218
1
0
So are you technically informed or not? ;)

Secondly, I say the same thing you that I said to Keith (and anyone else who either says it does not work or is a placebo). I have actually put comparative files up in the other thread. They sound noticeably different, yet the only difference between them is that an Entreq Minimus was connected to my ADC / DAC when one of those files was created (and wasn't connected when the other was made). That debunks the myth that it does nothing since anyone can play those two files and hear a noticeable difference between the two of them.

It isn't a question as to whether Entreq gear improves the sound of a system. It's a question of what Entreq component selection is optimal for a given system and listener preference. Even the best gear on the planet benefits. One Entreq user here even uses it with his Vivaldi DAC and in my opinion that is the most thoroughly engineered piece of audio equipment on the planet.

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who tries Entreq gear and does not hear a difference. And I don't have a problem with someone who tries it and does not like what it does (I did not like the Silver Minimus myself but love the cheaper copper one). But I do have a problem with people who say it cannot work or is a placebo yet have not tried it themselves.

Yes I am, which is why I have drawn the conclusions I have. However I am always open to being further informed and acknowledge the real possibility there is something I don't know which could prove me wrong. This is why I have openly asked for others to explain the Technical reasoning behind the box.

Sorry, I am a bit confused. So you are saying that it's not about improving the sound, you are saying it's about distorting the sound to suit a personal preference or lack of neutrality in the sound of your system. You do realise it's a possibility it is doing just that? Might act as a nice RF antenna ;) and changing the sound of kit. This may be mistakenly perceived as an improvement.

So, you have no problem with and trust a subjective opinion about the sound of this accessory, even though it is clear that subjective opinions have the potential to be extremely flawed, expectation bias etc, etc, etc, yet you have a problem with an opinion based on science and engineering principles.....OK........well......personally I don't feel the need to jump off a tall building to find out for myself what might happen. I am informed about the science of gravity.
 
Last edited:

Barry2013

VIP/Donor
Oct 12, 2013
2,305
487
418
Essex UK
To the best of my knowledge no one has yet been able to produce a generally acceptable scientific explanation as to how and why different interconnect and speaker cables affect the sound and people on this forum have from time to time maintained that expensive cables cannot affect the sound. The vast majority of audio enthusiasts have found that they do and those who have argued to the contrary find little support.
That does seem to be generally accepted and not to attract the same controversy as Entreq and Tripoint grounding.
I would be interested to hear Geardaddy and BE718's views on that.
 

BE718

New Member
Sep 30, 2015
218
1
0
To the best of my knowledge no one has yet been able to produce a generally acceptable scientific explanation as to how and why different interconnect and speaker cables affect the sound and people on this forum have from time to time maintained that expensive cables cannot affect the sound. The vast majority of audio enthusiasts have found that they do and those who have argued to the contrary find little support.
That does seem to be generally accepted and not to attract the same controversy as Entreq and Tripoint grounding.
I would be interested to hear Geardaddy and BE718's views on that.

Apart from the effect of the electrical parameters such as resistance, capacitance, inductance, geometry, dielectric properties.....etc.......

What's missing is the correlation between sound and the electrical properties. This problem is compounded and probably made impossible to answer due to the infinite variety of components that are connected and how this will affect the "sound" or electrical parameters mentioned and performance of the whole circuit.

So I don't think there is any mystery here. FWIW I am of the opinion that cables correctly designed without unusual and with appropriate electrical parameters do sound little different. It is of course possible to design cable with odd electrical parameters that do affect the sound in a significant way. If a cable is sounding significantly different from a range of others you should be asking yourself why.

So really you are suggesting that people don't understand how the entreq allegedly works, but we should just accept that it does and shouldn't question it based on some subjective opinions saying it does.
 
Last edited:

Barry2013

VIP/Donor
Oct 12, 2013
2,305
487
418
Essex UK
Yes it is that absence of correlation that I am referring to.
Evaluation of i/cs, speaker cables and mains cables. whether by consumers or reviewers, is wholly based on listening experiences and people just do accept that for their buying decisions. And that is rarely questioned.
Why is that widely acceptable but not acceptable for Entreq/Tripoint?
Across the globe both Entreq and Tripoint have been found to improve sound quality by tens of thousands of users and other manufacturers related products like Shunyata and Taralabs have attracted similar approval based on listening experience as opposed correlated scientific measurement.
It can be argued that such users are deceiving themselves but in my view the positive and very widely spread positive experiences cannot be credibly explained by that and certainly I am satisfied that I can hear the positive benefits.
I freely admit that my technical knowledge is limited and that I rely on my ears. I am more persuaded by that than by claims based on technical knowledge that because something cannot be explained by the claimants technical knowledge it cannot possibly work especially when they have never tried Entreq/Tripoint and when others with substantial technical knowledge attest to the improvements.
There are lots of things which cannot be explained by science and scientific measurement which are freely and readily accepted.
Claims that something cannot possibly work based on the author's technical knowledge just strike me as dogmatic though not necessarily insincere.
Can I just close by saying how refreshing it is to have your well expressed and measured response which I have tried to respond to in the same way.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
I sure as heck thought it was. That is why I joined this place and left the trolls behind at other websites (or so I thought). I think we should make a really simple rule here. You don't make denigrating posts about a product unless you have heard it.
At the last two shows I heard hundreds of systems and thousands of components. And I tell you this: you should put next to no value to what I just said. :)

This thread in question is someone opening the box of one of these products and showing absence of much of anything in there:



What I see as a woodworker is cheap and shoddy construction. I see the same thing if a drawer in a chest that is stapled and glued together rather than dovetailed. Please explain why what I just said is an invalid criticism of one aspect of this product, in a thread dedicated to viewing its pictures.

Adding on, I also like to understand why it would be out of line to discuss why that wire is bent the way it is and put inside that box the way it is.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Intentionally teasing or provoking other users in order "get a rise out of them", thereby disrupting the harmony of this site is TROLLING and will NOT be tolerated.[/i][/b]
Thank for the proposal. Sitting here, I have a senior member that people want to get back but he does not want to come back unless *far more* of the above is allowed. He says that you all are adults and don't need our supervision and correcting any missteps. He is by the way firmly in your camp of audio.

Having come from the school of what you say, he has made me re-think my past position. Great benefit of what he says is hugely reduced workload on us in running around and dealing with complaints as we get now.

BTW, whatever we do better not rule me out as a participant because heaven knows, I like to tease people. :D
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
While I am stirring trouble with these posts, why not investigate what makes these products and figure out if we can make DIY versions of them???
 

BE718

New Member
Sep 30, 2015
218
1
0
Yes it is that absence of correlation that I am referring to.
Evaluation of i/cs, speaker cables and mains cables. whether by consumers or reviewers, is wholly based on listening experiences and people just do accept that for their buying decisions. And that is rarely questioned.
Why is that widely acceptable but not acceptable for Entreq/Tripoint?
Across the globe both Entreq and Tripoint have been found to improve sound quality by tens of thousands of users and other manufacturers related products like Shunyata and Taralabs have attracted similar approval based on listening experience as opposed correlated scientific measurement.
It can be argued that such users are deceiving themselves but in my view the positive and very widely spread positive experiences cannot be credibly explained by that and certainly I am satisfied that I can hear the positive benefits.
I freely admit that my technical knowledge is limited and that I rely on my ears. I am more persuaded by that than by claims based on technical knowledge that because something cannot be explained by the claimants technical knowledge it cannot possibly work especially when they have never tried Entreq/Tripoint and when others with substantial technical knowledge attest to the improvements.
There are lots of things which cannot be explained by science and scientific measurement which are freely and readily accepted.
Claims that something cannot possibly work based on the author's technical knowledge just strike me as dogmatic though not necessarily insincere.
Can I just close by saying how refreshing it is to have your well expressed and measured response which I have tried to respond to in the same way.

Its not accepted because it has no scientific basis that I can think of to do anything beneficial. I am waiting for someone to come up with at least some kind of explanation. Hasnt anyone noticed that they are not actually grounding anything? Its not accepted because, as I pointed out, subjective opinions have many reasons to be flawed.

You mentioned cables as if there were no scientific explanation to their different sounds, but I am sorry there patently is, which was pointed out.

I think that placebo/expectation bias can very much explain whats going on here.

Can I ask how many thousand dollars these plywood boxes with unidentified granuals in cost?......and then say that you are utterly devoid of any bias in your evaluation?

Also consider that if they are making a positive difference why that is. What is your system doing / not doing that it shouldnt / should be? Sounds like a design flaw to me. Also consider that the boxes may be having a deleterious effect which you mistake for improvement. People often like a sound, this doesnt always correlate with better technical performance.

So is it not also dogmatic to say "I hear it therefore it is"? As I pointed out subjective opinions have many reasons to be flawed.
 
Last edited:

Fiddle Faddle

Member
Aug 7, 2015
548
2
16
Australia
What I see as a woodworker is cheap and shoddy construction

Yes, about as shoddy as the interior woodworking on a $4 million Del Gesu violin. As opposed to the perfection of the interior woodwork of a $1 million Strad violin. I don't see Joshua Bell and Pinchas Zukerman losing sleep at night and moaning about their violins because the insides of them looked like they were made by a bumbling drunk. And I am sure I could pull apart many wood-based hifi components and find similar interiors. Most users just buy the stuff, put it in their systems and enjoy the sound and what it looks like on the outside. Do you store your car in your garage upside down and admire the underside each time you open your garage door?

I honestly don't understand what people were expecting from these things. Even the manufacturer has never made any claims for anything magical being inside them. There is a bit of a language barrier but all I have ever been given to understand right from the outset is that these are simple boxes with some metal plates in them and some sort of mineral "mix". And as someone who would happily pay around 20% of the total value of my system on Entreq stuff, I am paying for the sound and for what I think is a reasonably good, aesthetically appealing exterior that blends in well with modern and classical décor and which non-enthusiast spouses find to be a very amenable addition.

As for the mineral "mix", whatever it is seems to be very important because when I auditioned the Entreq gear, the Silver Minimus box sounded completely different to the "copper" one. It changed the character of the system so much in a direction I did not want it to go, I didn't even want the component permanently in the system at all (but I find pure silver analogue interconnects do the same thing). The "copper" box on the other hand pushed the sound of the system precisely in the direction it needed to go. It was perfect. Yet the only difference between those two boxes is the composition of that "mix". Nothing more.

As for the price, it always makes my blood boil when people open up a commercial hifi component, declare that it uses (insert price) worth of materials and therefore is worth that. Meaning anything more than that or at best a bit more than that is a rip-off. The first "victim" of this practice was the excellent sounding Grado RA-1 headphone amp many years ago. It was great till people pulled it apart and found $5 worth of electronics inside, embedded in an ugly interior filled with resin. Then cables became fodder for the same practice. And now it is a common practice. Anyone who has studied or practices accounting will tell these people that material costs are a minor cost of running a business in the scheme of things and that holds true even when you are talking about business where the sole purpose is the manufacturer of physical goods. Every component a hifi manufacturer sells has to cover a massive range of costs, most having nothing to do with materials, except in the cases of some budget manufacturers who go out of their way to base their business model around budget equipment where functionality rates far above form (such as the Record Doctor V record cleaner I bought a couple of weeks ago).

And let's not forget that the Entreq components that do not employ any silver are actually quite cheap in the scheme of things. Forgetting my country which is hamstrung by a poor exchange rate and freight costs, you are paying the same for this gear as you are a decent but basic speaker. The cost of the silver models is much more but so is the cost of silver. You can see comparable prices hikes with cable manufacturers such as Audioquest and Wireworld, where the prices of cables almost doubles when the only significant differences are the employment of pure silver as opposed to the highest quality copper.

My outlay on Entreq gear has been very modest. Two Mimimus boxes in my main system with Eartha Konstantin cables costing me in total around $1500 AUD. A decent analogue interconnect these days costs around that much. A cartridge with a life of a couple of thousand hours far more. In the scheme of things the value is there and for sonic "punch" versus price, my experience is that there are very few other upgrades around that can compete.
 
Last edited:

BE718

New Member
Sep 30, 2015
218
1
0
I honestly don't understand what people were expecting from these things. Even the manufacturer has never made any claims for anything magical being inside them. There is a bit of a language barrier but all I have ever been given to understand right from the outset is that these are simple boxes with some metal plates in them and some sort of mineral "mix". And as someone who would happily pay around 20% of the total value of my system on Entreq stuff, I am paying for the sound and for what I think is a reasonably good, aesthetically appealing exterior that blends in well with modern and classical décor and which non-enthusiast spouses find to be a very amenable addition.

As for the mineral "mix", whatever it is seems to be very important because when I auditioned the Entreq gear, the Silver Minimus box sounded completely different to the "copper" one. It changed the character of the system so much in a direction I did not want it to go, I didn't even want the component permanently in the system at all (but I find pure silver analogue interconnects do the same thing). The "copper" box on the other hand pushed the sound of the system precisely in the direction it needed to go. It was perfect. Yet the only difference between those two boxes is the composition of that "mix". Nothing more.

As for the price, it always makes my blood boil when people open up a commercial hifi component, declare that it uses (insert price) worth of materials and therefore is worth that. Meaning anything more than that or at best a bit more than that is a rip-off. The first "victim" of this practice was the excellent sounding Grado RA-1 headphone amp many years ago. It was great till people pulled it apart and found $5 worth of electronics inside, embedded in an ugly interior filled with resin. Then cables became fodder for the same practice. And now it is a common practice. Anyone who has studied or practices accounting will tell these people that material costs are a minor cost of running a business in the scheme of things and that holds true even when you are talking about business where the sole purpose is the manufacturer of physical goods. Every component a hifi manufacturer sells has to cover a massive range of costs, most having nothing to do with materials, except in the cases of some budget manufacturers who go out of their way to base their business model around budget equipment where functionality rates far above form (such as the Record Doctor V record cleaner I bought a couple of weeks ago).

And let's not forget that the Entreq components that do not employ any silver are actually quite cheap in the scheme of things. .

What scheme is this? It's a badly made plywood box with some pieces of bent copper and kitty litter inside. If it actually did something technically beneficial I would suggest it's worth about 50Aud. As it doesn't do anything technically useful, I would suggest it's worth considerably less. On the other hand I suppose some may consider it has some aesthetic value........it could also be considered to have some psychological value.

You are absolutely correct in one respect however, I also don't know what people are expecting these boxes to do???

What do they think it is technically doing? Hasn't anyone noticed it doesn't actually ground anything?
 
Last edited:

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 25, 2015
6,020
1,486
520
Eastern WA
Amirm I think your comments on the wood are ridiculous. The picture shows a box opened with force. I have no reason to believe before it was forced open it wasn't perfectly straight lines and angles. No dovetails? So? What for? Do they advertise that you can use it as a chock block for your car? A 6 sided box of plywood probably would stand up to that anyway and you wouldn't see dovetails inside either. I think they're a little boring and uninspired, which is perfect for $400. In fact given the audio market $400 is almost cheap for the difficult nature of trying to operate a business (not from China). There's a decent amount of work in a box that started life as a rough piece of oak and a 4x8ft sheet of plywood, in one of those. *They clearly wouldn't be able to line it all up correctly without using 8/4 or better sized wood, while having the large radiused edge for their weird look they wanted, so of course they have plywood insides.

Would you really want to pay another $100 for dovetails and photo quality insides that are covered in the black dirt stuff?

BTW if you're looking at pictures of the box 'in order of opening' take note most of the pictures found elsewhere show the box hobbled back together after being ripped apart. You can clearly tell because the bottom isn't hanging loose to start, and then appears to be hanging down before the side is off, and all of it looks crooked even though it wasn't before.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Amirm I think your comments on the wood are ridiculous. The picture shows a box opened with force. I have no reason to believe before it was forced open it wasn't perfectly straight lines and angles.
Not caring about straight lines. Caring about what looks to be cheap CDX plywood. Holes drilled and blown out with brute force. Enclosure that doesn't seem to be glued properly, etc.

But you are missing the larger message which is the fact that we can visually inspect something and have informed opinion about it. I don't need to listen to it to comment on its construction, quality gone into material and construction, etc.

Would you really want to pay another $100 for dovetails and photo quality insides that are covered in the black dirt stuff?
Me? No, I would want to figure out what it does. If it helps making something sound better given what is inside this box, we could make it for a fraction of the price and go to town. And if it doesn't work, let's figure it out. No way should war break out over such discussion and demands of "you better have listened to it or you are trolling" declared.
 

Fiddle Faddle

Member
Aug 7, 2015
548
2
16
Australia
And if it doesn't work, let's figure it out.

in the measurements forum where many members such as myself don't have any desire to ever participate. I already said when I posted my sound files that anyone could "go to town" on them in the measurement forum but that I was not the slightest bit interested in their findings, results or conclusions. Just in the same way that a number of members in this thread have absolutely no regard for the subjective listening experiences of those who actually own the stuff, use it daily and have auditioned quite a few products within the range.
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 25, 2015
6,020
1,486
520
Eastern WA
Not caring about straight lines. Caring about what looks to be cheap CDX plywood. Holes drilled and blown out with brute force. Enclosure that doesn't seem to be glued properly, etc.

But you are missing the larger message which is the fact that we can visually inspect something and have informed opinion about it. I don't need to listen to it to comment on its construction, quality gone into material and construction, etc.


Me? No, I would want to figure out what it does. If it helps making something sound better given what is inside this box, we could make it for a fraction of the price and go to town. And if it doesn't work, let's figure it out. No way should war break out over such discussion and demands of "you better have listened to it or you are trolling" declared.

I haven't seen good enough photos to tell if the glue is bad. The break looks slightly abnormally clean. But it looks like a lot of force was used to wedge a screw driver or something in at multiple points. Clearly the oak was glued to the piece of plywood better than the plywood to plywood (on edge), which doesn't form the best bond. But I don't see any reason to believe it has any bearing on the overall product that's clearly structurally strong and sealed.

The holes aren't blown out with brute force. Blown out plywood is not concentrated in the specific circle area, it would have a large strip extended away form it, were it blown out. I imagine they used speed bits, which leave a more rough hole. But in general because all they're doing is opening enough room for the back side of the copper post that is precision drilled for in the oak, it's smart business not to waste time here on something that has no bearing on the device.

Also it looks like what appears as blow out might in fact be some sort of coating. The inside may sprayed with something (may even be conductive). Even if it were CDX plywood, it's impossible to tell due to some white layer on it. I personally don't think it looks like CDX because it's very smooth, not warpy, not 'rustic', and I don't see a bunch of core-patching/holes. Plus it doesn't look to have blood glue. I'd say it's definitely a good step up. It's structural, not veneer, however.

I believe a functioning product could be made for very little at home. But the copper isn't cheap, even if you did use CDX plywood (which isn't easy to get into the shape of little box effectively without some fairly spendy wood tools). I don't know about the coating and the roll it plays, or the cost of the filling. I will say however if you want a box to look like theirs, and be cheap, good luck. To whip one out with minimal labor as a one time run would probably cost you as much as their retail if it's done locally at a wood shop. To do a bunch of them you need the investment of a production capable wood shop that can make a lot all at once; or at least the parts. I think a DIY version is a grand idea. Also I'll state I'm not familiar with pricing of their larger models, perhaps the price differences don't actually amount to relation to material & labor. However I'll state that the market sometimes determines these difference, because people want the product but may not have confidence in spending low amounts of money for the difference in sound achieved; they may not take it seriously. Lastly they sell to dealers and distribution so they need a bit more markup.

BTW I have no idea what you're comment about listening to it has to do with anything. I'm not making comments about hearing it, just that I think you should take a second look at the construction and how it plays into the product integrity. I believe you were a fair bit off base.
 
Last edited:

Fiddle Faddle

Member
Aug 7, 2015
548
2
16
Australia
So you are saying that it's not about improving the sound, you are saying it's about distorting the sound to suit a personal preference or lack of neutrality in the sound of your system. You do realise it's a possibility it is doing just that? Might act as a nice RF antenna ;) and changing the sound of kit. This may be mistakenly perceived as an improvement.

Wow. I don't know where to start. You haven't actually heard the gear in your own system. You certainly haven't given it a decent audition - period.You haven't actually seen it in your hands. You are just looking at photos on the internet of a box that has been hacked open and you've made your mind up by looking at the inside of the box and seeing the components laid out. You probably haven't heard my sound files. And you seem to ignore the many posts I have made in the other thread praising the improvements in the sound brought about by Entreq components. Instead you conclude that I am somehow enjoying a product that makes the sound worse and adds noise like an antenna. Yet you say that you want / need to measure it, but ironically and notwithstanding, without measuring it you've already decided that it just ruins the sound of components that are (according to you) flawed in design to begin with. This presumably includes the dCS Vivaldi DAC since a member here uses Entreq with that DAC as well and achieves an improvement in the sound - even with a component that is arguably the best engineered digital component in existence.

There seems to be no point arguing with someone like yourself because you've already made your mind up and obviously no one is going to change it. I'd opine, however, that reasonable, unbiased open-minded observers of this thread would be wondering how you've managed to crucify a component you actually have had nothing whatsoever to so with.

As for making the sound "better" or "worse", it is not nearly as simple as you obviously would like it to be. I use a digital workstation with analogue inputs and I was able to compare two Entreq products on that (copper and silver Minimus) along with no Entreq gear at all. I was able to compare (by real time monitoring) the straight analogue input, along with the recorded digital of that input - one recorded with no Entreq, one with copper Entreq and one with silver Entreq.

On my workstation (which by deliberate design is about as neutral as I have heard), the silver Entreq box inclusion produced a digital transcription of an analogue input more accurate sonically to that original analogue source than both the copper box - and certainly better than no Entreq at all. However when mixing (i.e working wholly in the digital domain with real time capture with DSP applied), the copper box produced a more accurate result than the other two methods. But on the consumer-based system I use in my living room (which like almost every system in existence has strengths and weaknesses, all of which colour the sound and give it a particular character), the silver box actually supplemented that particular character. So it was too much. The copper, however, did not accentuate those flaws and instead complimented them, thereby making the sound of that system more neutral. I am perfectly happy to concede that the copper worked better than the "better" silver in that system because that system is not high end and the flaws in it are more obvious than high end stuff. I'm not the first person in the world to prefer a lesser component in a system that synergises better than an expensive one and I won't be the last. However the fact that owners of gear vastly superior to mine get improved results from the silver box supports the notion that the more accurate and better engineered the system is, the better will be the result using the higher end Entreq stuff as opposed to the low end stuff.

As for Entreq products actually distorting the sound by adding noise (or whatever else you might suggest), this is completely at odds with my listening experience. If these products did distort the sound (say by adding RF or other noise or artefacts), there is no way that a greater low level of detail would be heard, better 3D imaging, better timbre, tighter bass and a more focussed high end. Because those things are never the results of lowering the quality of the source or the reproduction gear - those results are only achieved by improving it.

As for you asking about further measurements from me, I am declining for several reasons. Firstly, you have already been judge jury and executioner and nothing I do is going to change your mind. It will just give you more ammunition to keep on arguing. For example, were I to discover by measurement that the silver Entreq reduces noise from -120 dB at 50 Hz to -122 dB at 50 hz (whereas say the copper one reduces noise at 2 KHz by the same), you would simply argue that this is irrelevant because those levels are far beyond the audibility of humans and cannot possibly effect what we hear. I've been through this all before. I could then try to tell you that I can easily hear how dithering at a 24 bit level produces clearly audible results depending on the noise shaping (even though again there is no noise added even remotely within a human's hearing capability) and you'd just say the same thing. Or you would just point out flaws with the methodology, flaws with the equipment, flaws everywhere. Because you've already resolved to put these products in the flawed and rip-off category and therefore you have to ensure that all evidence to the contrary is ignored - just in the same way that not none single time have you even given one milligram of weight to the hundreds of users who have praised the gear and who wouldn't be seen dead removing it from their systems. You also ignore the anecdotal evidence (this happened to both myself and another user) where the Entreq cable was knocked off the terminal and we both wondered why our sound had gone downhill until we looked at the back of the system and saw the detached cable.

In any case, I only produced those comparative files as a one-off because I was on holidays, did not need to use the workstation for a couple of months and needed to do some bi-annual maintenance on it (complete strip down, clean and rebuild). It takes a little time for the system to optimise itself once again when the cable is reconnected and with daily use of the workstation, I can't afford to go experimenting again until the next service is due.
 

Fiddle Faddle

Member
Aug 7, 2015
548
2
16
Australia
For those emailing me asking about the comparison files I made, here is the link:

https://www.sendspace.com/file/cetdtp

Note: I have to temporarily disable my Internet Explorer smart screen filter to download it, so re-enable it if you have to disable it once the file is downloaded.

And as I said in the other thread, you are free to measure and compare the two files till the cows come home, but please do it and report in the appropriate forum (measurement forum) as I have no interest in the results and will not debate them. I do not wish to debate them as I am academically unqualified (and unqualified on account of lack of scientific experience and the lack of measuring scientific equipment) to discuss objective measurements or formulate opinions based upon them. In any case, since the two files come from a "live" analogue input source, the files can't be nulled out, for example.
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 25, 2015
6,020
1,486
520
Eastern WA
For those emailing me asking about the comparison files I made, here is the link:

https://www.sendspace.com/file/cetdtp

Note: I have to temporarily disable my Internet Explorer smart screen filter to download it, so re-enable it if you have to disable it once the file is downloaded.

And as I said in the other thread, you are free to measure and compare the two files till the cows come home, but please do it and report in the appropriate forum (measurement forum) as I have no interest in the results and will not debate them. I do not wish to debate them as I am academically unqualified (and unqualified on account of lack of scientific experience and the lack of measuring scientific equipment) to discuss objective measurements or formulate opinions based upon them. In any case, since the two files come from a "live" analogue input source, the files can't be nulled out, for example.

Thank you.
 

spazmatron

Banned
Dec 4, 2015
190
0
0
Somerset, uk
Although I understand what's happened here and I understand it's inevitable or at least within the dynamic of our interactions on this forum, it still disappoints me.

Indeed the insides of these boxes can lead to ridicule of the product, those who are happy with theirs should not concern them selfs with the arguments of others more sceptical.

its all a non issue, or at least should be as these pictures have been about for years. What's new?

If you can't take a little joke or indeed tolerate some other members thinking your a little crazy best not post on forums.

Best not be a audiophile as most of the outside world will think your nuts! A good indicator to you all to take your selfs a little less seriously! Maybe learn to laugh at our own selfs?

Keith thinks putting sorbathane under things makes them sound better! I think it's the worst thing to use, certainly in any large amount. It kills music just like davec says....

I don't mind Keith thinking I am looney! We are all looney to various degrees!! ... Including Keith ;)

If your enjoying your entreq boxes great! Of course they could be made better but then would cost more, I am sure the improvement would have little impact on thier function.
 

Billy Shears

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2015
255
1
150
Spaz, if you want to understand what the real issue is here rockitman summed it up pretty well:

this pretty much covers it, imo.

TROLLING:

Making meaningless posts with the intention of starting a dispute or disrupting the peace and harmony of this site is TROLLING and will NOT be tolerated.

Derailing threads by steering a discussion away from the original topic and onto a controversial topic with the intention of starting a dispute or disrupting the harmony of the site is TROLLING and will NOT be tolerated.

"Piling-on", or acting as a group to disparage a user who has expressed a contrarian point of view with the intent of silencing that user or running that user out of the forum is TROLLING and will NOT be tolerated.

Intentionally teasing or provoking other users in order "get a rise out of them", thereby disrupting the harmony of this site is TROLLING and will NOT be tolerated.

It is absolutely reasonable to be critical. Not a week goes by without me opening up some expensive piece of gear and getting annoyed about some of the cheap parts they use.
But the posts in question have nothing to do with expressing doubt in a reasonable manner....
Being able to take a joke does not even come into it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing