Entreq Tellus grounding,in england

[Fiddle Faddle]

More than one person insisted today that I listen. Why did they say that then?

Hmm. Let me think really hard on this one...

Maybe it is because we listen to music with our ears rather than with our eyes glued to FFT screens.

and also...

To actually give it a fair go.

and...

The chance that you actually may hear a difference which would be to your benefit, not for the benefit of Entreq owners who already know it makes an audible difference.


Wow. That was a super hard question there. I am wiping the sweat off my brow as I type this.

 

[amirm]

To set the record straight....You are the one who has allowed all of this Entreq debate to get out of hand. You encouraged trolling by various skeptical members who had zero experience with the product. Your direction and tone is why this forum is losing it's senior members who have been here since the beginning . You are injecting yourself into the fray too much...unheard of for credible forum admins. I suggest you do yourself and the forum a favor and step back a bit and enforce anti trolling rules....

 

[amirm]

All comes down to purpose. This is the obvious and perfect solution for many of us. Just depends on what your aim is. If the purpose is to listen to music then listening to the music is the start... and a perfect end. If it all gets you in properly then we don't even have to go any further than that.

If your primary purpose is to measure stuff then the music doesn't really matter as all you need is sounds because measurement doesn't as yet completely account for the human experience of listening to music. Science has yet to fully map how people listen to music rather than how people listen to sounds and so we don't fully understand all we would need to measure.

If what we hear makes us always just want to pull it all apart, measure it and only listen to unintegrated sounds then it's not that good at playing music and instead of measuring you could just get something else that actually makes you want to listen to the music.

We do make this much harder by not identifying first what are actually doing it for.

My primary interest is seeking knowledge. We have this explosion of audio tweaks and a lot of supporters of them. I like to understand them better and I think many other people do too. This involves figuring out possible theories of operation, measurements to get data on the same and controlled listening tests. There are limitations to each one of these independently but collectively they may paint a decent picture that directionally points to whether a product has merit or not.

Since I am spending my own money and resources on these tests, I am using my own method of audio evaluation, not anyone else's. And that method as I mentioned above, has three legs. This is something I have done professionally when the stakes were your next promotion and company's success or not. So it isn't an area that is new to me, nor do I walk down blind alleys that I know generate completely faulty results.

Thanks to the efforts of Fiddle, we have made good progress here but there is so much work we can create for him to do and hence my willingness to spend the money and investigate further.

 

[amirm]

Maybe it is because we listen to music with our ears rather than with our eyes glued to FFT screens.

An FFT says precisely what enters your ear. What you write down in a forum is a sum of your ear+brain. We can trivially prove that the brain by itself hears many things without the ear hearing anything different. Because of that, the research and industry accepted methods of audio evaluation exclude what you say should be the evaluation method. Just like your doctor following the norm in medical science in deciding what medication to prescribe to you, I follow the same especially since I have learned the same lessons professionally and for countless times.

Hope you understand .

 

[Barry2013]

I will resist the temptation to comment further on this thread and try to summarise how we might best move on in a constructive manner.
The key questions seem to be do the Entreq components change a system's sound for better or worse.
For most people the answer to that question is the most important issue just as it is with other buying decisions be it sources, amplifiers et al. I am and have been content to rely upon my ears in making such decisions.
Others feel the need to be able to test what they hear with measurements to confirm or confound their listening experiences.
Others who even if the first two considerations set out indicate the benefits seek in addition to establish a scientific explanation how said component, Entreq in this case, achieves such benefits.
Currently Amir has been offered the opportunity to answer the first two questions insofar as current science allows at little or no cost to himself, but I suggest he would be well advised to involve others to improve the credibility of whatever he finds.
Amir appears to me to be particularly concerned to try to find a scientific explanation for any beneficial effects on sound quality that may or may not be apparent from both listening and measurements. To do that to his satisfaction he wants to open up the boxes. PO has said, not unreasonably in my view, well I can't stop you doing that, but you will have to buy the kit if that is what you want to do.
The ball is therefore firmly in Amir's court and I wait with interest to learn what he proposes to do.

 

[jkeny]

Well it is more a hypothesis based on my own listening experience. When I heard my first ever CD (as late as 1985 - Itzhak Perlman / Ashkenasy Beethoven Sonatas) I wondered what the heck had happened to the violin sound. As an advanced violin student at the time, it sounded absolutely nothing like what a violin should sound like. This same "violin" problem persisted for many years whenever I listened to digital. It has really only been in the last decade or so where significant improvements in dithering and resampling algorithms have mitigated the profound effects 16 bit digital had on violin sound. And yes, I noticed problems with other instruments too - it's just that it wasn't nearly as irritating as it was with the violin. Maybe the fact that of all bowed stringed instruments, the violin sits closer than the others in terms of the ear's naturally sensitive frequency region (2K to 4K) has something to do with it. I then found that 24 bit went a very long way to getting violin sound back to what it really should sound like and then again further reducing noise floors as 24 bit equipment improves. So I think getting a noise floor as low as possible has a highly beneficial effect to the point where on the very best 24 bit equipment with super low noise floors and a superlative, all-digital 24 bit recording, violin sound is getting close to reality (but still not there yet). But I can add artificial noise floors to a good recording and the first instruments to "go" are the violins. Followed by the woodwind. As I say, it might have something to with the frequency range of the violin along with the extremely complex low level harmonic structure that a good instrument possesses.

I agree. That's my experience too - as the noise floor decreases, the listening experience become more realistic. I don't know if this is because we can then hear a more natural sonic tail to sounds or because by reducing noise we are also probably reducing noise modulation - it's probably a combination of both factors

Yes, I am definitely a subjectivist. I always remain interested in measurement, however, if only to hopefully one day establish exactly what it is that makes sound appealing to me subjectively, but in terms of measurement. Unfortunately, having correlated measurements and subjective experience for decades now, I haven't really found any direct and repeatable relationships between measurements and what I hear, apart from obvious things such as frequency response bumps, etc. You can show me a theoretically poorer jitter plot, for example, versus a "better" one, but I might prefer the sound of the poorer one because of the particular frequencies and levels of jitter involved. Some frequencies don't harm my listening experience like others do. It is precisely the same with noise. When I got the PSP X-Dither module, it enabled me to experiment with dither noise at the 24 bit level. You'd never imagine noise so far down could produce an audible result but it does. I grew to prefer as flat a noise floor as possible. The more noise that exists at high frequencies, the more I dislike what that does for violin sound. The more noise that exists at low frequencies, the more that effects the pace, timing and clarity of the presentation. And yet we are talking about noise levels that even at their very worst, are far, far below the threshold of audibly in their own right. In any event, better just to keep the noise as evenly distributed and as flat as possible in my opinion.

I'm of the same mindset as you, Fiddle - a subjectivist but hugely interested in why we hear what we hear - in other words the workings of auditory perception. Without a working model for auditory perception we will remain locked to measurements which don't help us correlate with what we hear.

Your experiments with dither remind me of Robb Watts (designer of Chord DACs) statements about the audible effects of very, very low noise modulation on audio - as you say, his experience also is that this noise isn't directly perceived but rather it's secondary effects are audibly perceived

 

[jkeny]

An FFT says precisely what enters your ear.

Eh, think again, Amir - do you really want to maintain this position?

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

Just like your doctor following the norm in medical science in deciding what medication to prescribe to you, I follow the same especially since I have learned the same lessons professionally and for countless times.

Probably not the best analogy. I can give you countless examples of where cutting edge medical science has destroyed lives. Furthermore, despite what science tells us, there is just as much passionate disagreement in the medical communities as there are the audiophile ones. Science is useful but they had science back in the 1600s as well. Science constantly evolves and the problem is that too many of it's staunch adherents think that in 2016 it is as good as it ever gets.

 

[treitz3]

Hope you understand .

Many do not. Empirical evidence. Screens do not equal listening observations. Sometimes yes but it is not in concrete, set in stone or with a 100% certainty of what will.

Tom

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

If what we hear makes us always just want to pull it all apart, measure it and only listen to unintegrated sounds then it's not that good at playing music and instead of measuring you could just get something else that actually makes you want to listen to the music.

I'm sorry but I found that hilarious, even though I think you meant it to be a profound observation. I wholeheartedly agree with it by the way. Reminds me of my late father who was never happy unless it could be taken apart with a screwdriver even if it was working perfectly!

 

[Barry2013]

Happy Saturday to all. I've been away for the past 8 days and completely off the grid. Catching up on the posts at WBF in the past week has brought me to this thread and close to 30 pages of posts. I have to say first off as a member but more importantly as an administrator and owner of this forum that I was truly embarrassed to have read what I did here by many members. Clearly there is a difference in opinions between those who own the product and take pride in their ownership because of what they hear vs those who not only don't own the product but have never heard it and slam it and its manufacturer without ever hearing the product. Personally I don't own it and have no pony in the game but I take great objection to these armchair engineers who on the basis of their claimed credentials continue to offer up their "opinion" that it is nothing but cat litter. Perhaps but my question is to the naysayers why won't you just put one as offered in your systems and then tell us your opinions. I feel as well that it is healthy to have differences of opinions but to myself as well as many readers here it seems bothersome that opinions be offered as sacrosanct without ever having heard the product. Further I felt comments about P-O as being a farmer and therefore incapable of making something that would benefit audiophiles as truly bothersome. How many great ideas, inventions, creations etc have come from ordinary people like you and I.

Personally I give more credence to those who have heard this equipment and voiced their opinion, be it positive or negative, than to those who have never heard it but claim it be impossible to glean any sonic benefit.

Of course this is just my opinion but again I have to apologize to P-O as well as to others who were offended by such comments

Well said Steve.

 

[esldude]

In regards to opening the boxes, can you learn enough Amir if you had it X-rayed? Or perhaps slightly heated and then thermal imaging while it cools? Perhaps you know someone with a thermography camera. Or can arrange to rent such equipment. Maybe that in conjunction with Per supplying interior photos during the Entreq construction.

 

[Barry2013]

In regards to opening the boxes, can you learn enough Amir if you had it X-rayed? Or perhaps slightly heated and then thermal imaging while it cools? Perhaps you know someone with a thermography camera. Or can arrange to rent such equipment. Maybe that in conjunction with Per supplying interior photos during the Entreq construction.

Any tests that Amir may perform should be done in good faith in an open and transparent manner.
Either he does it with PO providing the box(es) and cables on the basis offered or he does it by buying the boxes and undertaking whatever further examination he chooses.
Your proposal does not meet the good faith test and in my view does not reflect well on this forum

 

[Steve Williams]

Any tests that Amir may perform should be done in good faith in an open and transparent manner.
Either he does it with PO providing the box(es) and cables on the basis offered or he does it by buying the boxes and undertaking whatever further examination he chooses.
Your proposal does not meet the good faith test and in my view does not reflect well on this forum

I completely agree Barry and would like to suggest to esldude that perhaps his post is somewhat inflammatory

 

[amirm]

Most hobbyists would spend that money on better audio gear than test equipment IMHO

As they should....

 

[Rodney Gold]

There is no point to this.. nothing will change anyones mind.

 

[amirm]

Happy Saturday to all. I've been away for the past 8 days and completely off the grid. Catching up on the posts at WBF in the past week has brought me to this thread and close to 30 pages of posts. I have to say first off as a member but more importantly as an administrator and owner of this forum that I was truly embarrassed to have read what I did here by many members.

Boy, that is a grumpy way to come back to the forum Steve. Was the cruise not fun? There has been a few rough patches from members on both sides of the fence but I see nothing remotely to be embarrassed about.

Clearly there is a difference in opinions between those who own the product and take pride in their ownership because of what they hear vs those who not only don't own the product but have never heard it and slam it and its manufacturer without ever hearing the product.

There has been little to no slamming of manufacturer. We are discussing the product. Products are routinely examined by reviewers and views pros and cons shared online. Heck, earlier we beat VW to death for their actions and there was no cry to own a VW to participate.

If owners want to have a discussion thread for themselves, they can create a thread, clearly title it as "owner's thread" as people do on AVS display section and go at it. Otherwise a thread that starts with pictures of what is in a box is fare for discussions from both sides.

Personally I don't own it and have no pony in the game but I take great objection to these armchair engineers who on the basis of their claimed credentials continue to offer up their "opinion" that it is nothing but cat litter.

I take great exception to the name calling Steve. When did that become fashionable in this forum? A few years ago I post that I was not feeling good and lots of doctors including yourself gave me kind advise as to what it was or wasn't. I would have shot anyone who came in to say you were armchair doctors and your opinion did not matter.

I can get the engineer from any product you own to act like an armchair engineer as you call it without trying. Indeed as a member of the industry I have nothing but these conversations with company principals and designers at shows and meetings. That is what senior engineers do. They have so much experience that they can examine data presented to them and share informed opinion just like you would if I said smoking oregano cures lung cancer (don't tell me it doesn't as I must have smoked a ton of it already with no cancer in sight).

Perhaps but my question is to the naysayers why won't you just put one as offered in your systems and then tell us your opinions.

If you are speaking of me, in which case please use my name, I have already explained why I can't take P-O's kind offer. I have further said that I will be buying one. What else do you want from me?

I feel as well that it is healthy to have differences of opinions but to myself as well as many readers here it seems bothersome that opinions be offered as sacrosanct without ever having heard the product. Further I felt comments about P-O as being a farmer and therefore incapable of making something that would benefit audiophiles as truly bothersome. How many great ideas, inventions, creations etc have come from ordinary people like you and I.

Give us some examples from the medical field Steve. Tell us how many inventions there were deployed without the involvement of the doctors, and patients proceeded to buy said product directly from the farmer. I love to know some examples where these medical discoveries are put in place over strong objections of doctors calling them quackery.

Personally I give more credence to those who have heard this equipment and voiced their opinion, be it positive or negative, than to those who have never heard it but claim it be impossible to glean any sonic benefit.

Of course this is just my opinion but again I have to apologize to P-O as well as to others who were offended by such comments

It is your opinion. And my opinion and thousands of engineers who design your equipment is different. The even terminology used to name the product is wrong. You can take that opposing view but don't make it a foundation of the rest of the people having no business doing otherwise. It is stifling censorship and against the very core of why we have audio forums.

 

[amirm]

There is no point to this.. nothing will change anyones mind.

Our forum traffic consistently is 90% visitors, 10% members. Search engines like google index these threads and forever people find them and come back to them, long after we are gone. I can't tell you how many times people come to me at shows and say they read the site all the time, enjoy it, but have never registered. So the data has value even if the few vocal members here don't let go of their objections.

 

[amirm]

Any tests that Amir may perform should be done in good faith in an open and transparent manner.
Either he does it with PO providing the box(es) and cables on the basis offered or he does it by buying the boxes and undertaking whatever further examination he chooses.
Your proposal does not meet the good faith test and in my view does not reflect well on this forum

??? I am not sure how to connect your answer to what esldude is suggestion. Thermal imaging analysis and x-rays are routinely utilized to figure out what makes "opaque" devices tick. He is offering a way for me to test Entreq devices without being intrusive. What do you find wrong with that?

 

[Steve Williams]

I'm not going to play your little game of obfuscation and deflection. You see things through a jaundiced eye Amir. But that's just my opinion right

As for doctors being arm chair quarterbacks I say guess again. Any doctor who treats a patient without taking a history, doing a thorough physical exam with any and all necessary ancillary tests without first coming to a provisional diagnosis IMO is incompetent