I have overwritten permissions temporarily to allow you to see images from ASR Forum. See above: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...g-Measurements&p=393763&viewfull=1#post393763
Entreq Coming for Testing/Measurements
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
- Status
So you stated an irrelevant fact with respect to Entreq?
Again, that is not what the papers are about. Let me quote you the first line the Intersil App note you posted:
"The proliferation of wireless transceivers in portable
applications has created a need for increased attention to
an electronic circuits' ability to operate in the vicinity of
high frequency radio transmitters. "
The bolded parts should make it clear that this was an irrelevant paper to post. But I will expand to make sure.
Intersil makes Bluetooth silicon and one of the primary applications of Bluetooth is for transmitting audio. They are trying to raise awareness for designers that when you put a 2.4 Gigahertz Bluetooth transmitter right next to an audio device in a small portable device like a smartphone, Bluetooth speaker, etc., that you have to be careful as one can bleed into the other. They build a test fixture that injects up to 6 Ghz signal into the audio gear (second harmonic of 2.4 Gigahertz is 4.8 Ghz so you need to measure at least up to that point), and identify which circuit components can be susceptible to receiving and demodulating Bluetooth radio.
There is no applicability whatsoever to Entreq in any of this. You don't have a Bluetooth transmitter sitting inside your pre-amplifier and your designer, especially in high-end equipment, has made sure that radio frequencies don't bleed into their circuits. And even if you did have any of these issues, the last thing in the world you want to do is erecting an antenna in the form of a long wire from your equipment to an unterminated load like Entreq.
Your conclusion that audio equipment then has RFI and that it needs to be tested to 6 Ghz based on this paper has no merit at all. It is just a technique of throwing out technical stuff at people, hoping they don't read or understanding them and scoring a point. Please don't do that in this forum. It wastes time and energy to go chase this stuff.
I am not interested in temporary permissions in forums. What I see in WBF is a cheap hand held meter reading in the 40 Hz – 100 K Hz bandwidth - most probably the reading is dominated by the 60 Hz value. Completely meaningless IMHO. Long ago I have built similar devices for secondary school physics students from plans in hobby magazines - they had a lot of fun using it.
The inadequate equipment argument is a smokescreen.
I suspect that even if Amir used the highest spec measuring equipment borrowed from NASA or the folk at the Large Hadron Collider, people would still find something wrong with it
I suspect that even if Amir used the highest spec measuring equipment borrowed from NASA or the folk at the Large Hadron Collider, people would still find something wrong with it
Unfortunately you use your habitual technique - you quote a little part and not the interesting part where it is seen why up to 6 GHz should be measured. As soon as equipment has digital components with digital waveforms these frequencies exist in the device - you do not need a Bluetooth transmitter.
Please note that I do not ask - please do do not go on using this small quotation technique. I (and other forum members) already got used to it.
Most probably, specially if it was all tube equipment, including the power rectifier diodes. Unfortunately most analog equipment has digital micro-controllers for remote and switching, although some purists disable the clocks it after a few seconds inactive. IMHO it is why listening tests should be carried to determine the modus operandi of the Entreq - I accept that I can be completely wrong about it, I never handled or tried it.
Keep in mind the objectivist's creed: "If it can't be measured, it must be bunk."
Of course, this concept ignores the fact that there is much in this world we have not yet learned how to measure.
Of course, this concept ignores the fact that there is much in this world we have not yet learned how to measure.
Last edited:
Not a problem here. We have measured, and the results are positive and characterize the device nicely. Unfortunately that "positive" effect, is a negative thing with respect to what you want to have in your audio equipment. We don't want to inject noise into the equipment, nor transmit more of it into air.
That argument should be saved for situation where there is no measureable difference. There is in this one and amply so.
It would certainly be very interesting if users with digital systems reported benefits more than those with analog. If so, it would be an avenue worth exploring
Why don't you quote the interesting part then? And what on earth it relates to as far as Entreq?
The Entreq by the way connects to ground wire of your pre-amp. There is little to no digital components in there. And in the case of high-end analog pre-amplifiers it better damn well not have any sensitivity to picking up 6 Ghz signals and outputting them as audio.
What is the small quotation technique? You put forward an application note with this preface:
I understand the paper fully. I took the time to read it. And I quoted its introduction and context of it which clearly shows no applicability to the topic whatsoever.
As I mentioned, it is improper to throw stuff out there that you have not read or understood yourself to know if they at all read on the topic of discussion. It is one thing to not read someone else's references. It is entirely another matter to not have read your own, and then complain when someone is trying to explain to you what is in there?
Registration is free, you don't have to use your handle even, and you can setup a burner email account at countless free email services. But not doing that is preferable so you don't have to look at any data.
I tried the Entreq on both analog and digital gear; it did nothing to improve either of them.
I understand. This device though, is unlike many. It has only a single wire going to it. ...
It is built on an assumption that if you take the ground of a system and "bring it" to some device, you can do some good. The problem is that no "bringing" occurs this way. Electrical signals follow very strict rules. If you have two paths for example, they take the one with least resistance. In this case, this device has extremely high resistance (really impedance). So the currents that want to flow, will flow on your signal grounds already in your pre-amp. They don't "want" to go to this device.
Thanks, Amir. That is helpful to know.
It is a common aspect of most tweaks - their action is very dependent on system and electrical environment.
changed power quality
Frantz,
I was expecting your comment. Can you tell us how do you manage to turn your state of mind for power quality permanently on?
Frantz,
I was expecting your comment. Can you tell us how do you manage to turn your state of mind for power quality permanently on?
Last edited:
Frantz,
I was expecting your comment. Can you tell us how do you manage to turn your state of mind for power supply quality permanently on?
microstrip
To correct you just a bit... not Power Supply quality but Power Quality ... IEEE has several peer reviewed papers on the subject, some of them scholarly some not .. Google is your friend .. interesting read.. People in IT can show you beyond chance occurrences and anecdotes its (Power Quality) effect on components performance, reliability and longevity. As for its sonic implications, I have repeated many times that I have not performed any semblance of objective tests. Living part time in a country where Power Quality can affect (read destroy) anything from audio amplifiers to toaster oven in a matter of seconds or months.. i have taken the safe approach of always using a double conversion UPS in any system and can anecdotally declare it seems to make a difference ... The other part of the time I live in the Lightning Capital of the World, Florida better to blow a Battery Charger than my Burmester 911 MK3 the amp I keep on coming back to 25 years after hearing its first iteration
That assumes there is "action." If there is no "action" then it doesn't matter what system you plug them into. People have come up with all kinds of tweaks. It can't be that they are all effective. Some must be failures. Assuming that they all work and it is your system that is letting you down, is again an argument in dire need of some data to demonstrate validity.
Surely. It is why it is mandatory to try them and choose those we feel that are successful. And even so, most of them change sound quality, but the evaluation of being a positive or negative effect will depend on user preference. Unfortunately there is not a defined and firm line that separates the good from the fake tweaks and measurements have shown to be a failure analyzing most of them, particularly in the digital domain where almost all measured differences result in values bellow the "official" audibility threshold.
IMHO if this thread was really interested in making science trough measurements it would not be measuring a strange device coming from Sweden. It would pick a device such as a power cable coming from a known manufacturer such as Shunyata, who supplies technical evidence about their products and makes a real presence in audio forums and debates and would compare results. But is always much easier and mouthful to pick an weak and remote adversary . Just MHO.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |