Do Grounding Devices produce the same sonic benefit as cables or is it different?

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
Now that there are many Tripoint and Entreq Tellus users and enough opinions formed. Are the sonic benefits of upgrading cables the same as adding a grounding device? I'm curious to what users think.....Also what has had a greater transformation in sonic's ,particularly like bass,clarity,soundstage and others...cables or grounding devices? Directed at grounding device users only please.
 

Fiddle Faddle

Member
Aug 7, 2015
548
2
16
Australia
Now that there are many Tripoint and Entreq Tellus users and enough opinions formed. Are the sonic benefits of upgrading cables the same as adding a grounding device? I'm curious to what users think.....Also what has had a greater transformation in sonic's ,particularly like bass,clarity,soundstage and others...cables or grounding devices? Directed at grounding device users only please.

I can only speak for myself as everyone's experiences will be different. I have two Entreq boxes and also upgraded to a Wireworld Gold Reference cable (solid silver) in the same year, so I know well what each upgrade brought to the table.

There were certainly common improvements with both upgrades but each also brought unique strengths. Both upgrades brought more subjective detail, however the way that detail was presented was slightly different in each case. With Entreq, it felt more like the noise floor simply dropped and the best way I can describe it is getting an extra couple of bits from a CD that simply were never there (or could possibly be there) to begin with. But the cable brought a greater sense of detail and intimacy through the specific way individual instruments themselves sounded in the overall acoustic space. In other words, with a violin, the violin sounded more like I expected it to sound (as a player myself) - greater delicacy on bow changes, position of the bow between fingerboard and bridge, pressure, etc.

I think the most significant thing the cable upgrade brought with it was a significant improvement in instrument timbre and an overall relaxed smoothness of sound but without sacrificing any detail whatsoever. But you can only get the timbral improvement with better low level resolution and detail amongst other things.

Soundstage-wise and the Entreq made a noticeable improvement here. I did not really notice anything special in this respect from the cable upgrade.

With the bass, both brought almost identical improvements - firmer, more defined and less bloated. I honestly couldn't pick one from the other here and the effect was cumulative.

The bottom line for me is that in my case, both upgrades were what I felt to be "mandatory" and I couldn't really "substitute" what one does for the other. I thus would not have wanted one without the other. If I really had to pick and choose, I guess I would say the Wireworld cable improvements were a bit more important to me because I rate timbre and smoothness incredibly highly being a fan of large scale orchestral music. But the Entreq upgrade I couldn't do without either. It brought a certain level of solidity, focus and soundstage improvement that I couldn't really achieve through other means, save of course equipment upgrades (but then you'd just take the existing Entreq along for the ride with those upgrades anyway).
 

Barry2013

VIP/Donor
Oct 12, 2013
2,305
487
418
Essex UK
I have an extensive suite of Entreq cables and grounding boxes which I have added to and upgraded over the last three years.
FFs comments are very much in line with my own experiences, but the Entreq power cables and interconnects were also entirely beneficial in my system.
The most recent addition was an Olympus Tellus which replaced a Silver Tellus, an Atlantis Tellus and two silver Minimus.The OT has the additional mains grounding point a la Tripoint.
The grounding applications are really beneficial in reducing and eliminating unwanted noise with a much purer and musical sound together with a cleaner and more controlled bass.
The OT did bring further improvements in those areas which I assume comes from the mains earthing. There is now an organic transparency and resolution to my system's sound which was not there before installing the Entreq grounding.
The power cables are mainly Entreq Apollos as are the balanced interconnects. Both certainly improved the sound significantly but in my experience it is the grounding which so reduces the noise floor.
The effects of their cables and grounding are complementary and although I have not tried the grounding applications with other cables I would expect the ground boxes to be pretty well as effective as they are with Entreq cables
Incidentally, I notice in this month's HiFi+ an advert for what I presume is a new range of audio grounding cables from that company.
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
I can only speak for myself as everyone's experiences will be different. I have two Entreq boxes and also upgraded to a Wireworld Gold Reference cable (solid silver) in the same year, so I know well what each upgrade brought to the table.

There were certainly common improvements with both upgrades but each also brought unique strengths. Both upgrades brought more subjective detail, however the way that detail was presented was slightly different in each case. With Entreq, it felt more like the noise floor simply dropped and the best way I can describe it is getting an extra couple of bits from a CD that simply were never there (or could possibly be there) to begin with. But the cable brought a greater sense of detail and intimacy through the specific way individual instruments themselves sounded in the overall acoustic space. In other words, with a violin, the violin sounded more like I expected it to sound (as a player myself) - greater delicacy on bow changes, position of the bow between fingerboard and bridge, pressure, etc.

I think the most significant thing the cable upgrade brought with it was a significant improvement in instrument timbre and an overall relaxed smoothness of sound but without sacrificing any detail whatsoever. But you can only get the timbral improvement with better low level resolution and detail amongst other things.

Soundstage-wise and the Entreq made a noticeable improvement here. I did not really notice anything special in this respect from the cable upgrade.

With the bass, both brought almost identical improvements - firmer, more defined and less bloated. I honestly couldn't pick one from the other here and the effect was cumulative.

The bottom line for me is that in my case, both upgrades were what I felt to be "mandatory" and I couldn't really "substitute" what one does for the other. I thus would not have wanted one without the other. If I really had to pick and choose, I guess I would say the Wireworld cable improvements were a bit more important to me because I rate timbre and smoothness incredibly highly being a fan of large scale orchestral music. But the Entreq upgrade I couldn't do without either. It brought a certain level of solidity, focus and soundstage improvement that I couldn't really achieve through other means, save of course equipment upgrades (but then you'd just take the existing Entreq along for the ride with those upgrades anyway).

Fiddle Faddle, even though I use a different method of grounding, I concur with your observations. While the cabling can add detail,clarity,and a distinct level overall signature to the music. The ground device seems to just highlight or remove many magnitudes of veils to the musical information. The effect on the soundstage is astonishing and also on the bass,very powerful,liquid and articulate. Thanks for sharing.
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
I have an extensive suite of Entreq cables and grounding boxes which I have added to and upgraded over the last three years.
FFs comments are very much in line with my own experiences, but the Entreq power cables and interconnects were also entirely beneficial in my system.
The most recent addition was an Olympus Tellus which replaced a Silver Tellus, an Atlantis Tellus and two silver Minimus.The OT has the additional mains grounding point a la Tripoint.
The grounding applications are really beneficial in reducing and eliminating unwanted noise with a much purer and musical sound together with a cleaner and more controlled bass.
The OT did bring further improvements in those areas which I assume comes from the mains earthing. There is now an organic transparency and resolution to my system's sound which was not there before installing the Entreq grounding.
The power cables are mainly Entreq Apollos as are the balanced interconnects. Both certainly improved the sound significantly but in my experience it is the grounding which so reduces the noise floor.
The effects of their cables and grounding are complementary and although I have not tried the grounding applications with other cables I would expect the ground boxes to be pretty well as effective as they are with Entreq cables
Incidentally, I notice in this month's HiFi+ an advert for what I presume is a new range of audio grounding cables from that company.

Thanks Barry, This is great info. Your point about the noise floor of course is I think the greatest advantage to using some type of grounding. I have often asked myself how good can it get? Very good is my answer as even the tiniest drop in the noise floor seems to have a dramatic effect.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Fiddle Faddle, even though I use a different method of grounding, I concur with your observations. (...)

IMHO you should be disagreeing ... :) Although I have no experience with Entreq, it seems to me your method of grounding essentially denies what Entreq want to achieve and how it works. As far as I could understand you use a classical star grounding using extremely low impedance to the ground system, Entreq creates something like a distributed floating ground system with very specific tuned cables that no one seems to know exactly how it works, although people tell us it improves sound quality significantly.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is the idea I got from your previous comments.
 

Barry2013

VIP/Donor
Oct 12, 2013
2,305
487
418
Essex UK
Thanks Roger.
Yes after each iteration the noise floor has been reduced and reduced. I have wondered on each occasion how much more there could be to come but the improvements have just kept coming.
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
IMHO you should be disagreeing ... :) Although I have no experience with Entreq, it seems to me your method of grounding essentially denies what Entreq want to achieve and how it works. As far as I could understand you use a classical star grounding using extremely low impedance to the ground system, Entreq creates something like a distributed floating ground system with very specific tuned cables that no one seems to know exactly how it works, although people tell us it improves sound quality significantly.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is the idea I got from your previous comments.

Micro, yes I do use a "classical" star ground scheme. Both entreq and I keep safety grounds in place,both use wires attached to system chassis(s) to achieve a heavier ground path. Does Entreq lift any grounds? I don't think so,if not I would doubt the ground is floating. All Entreq users observe the same thing I do,so it is hard for me to conclude some other principle is at work here. I think it is the same just done differently.
 
Last edited:

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
Thanks Roger.
Yes after each iteration the noise floor has been reduced and reduced. I have wondered on each occasion how much more there could be to come but the improvements have just kept coming.

Barry, just to give you what I have done and noticed. It is almost impossible to tell from a recording of musical instruments. My "investigation" disc is a recording of the USN chorale. You can tell how low your noise floor can go by how clear the voices are. The human voice in multiples is very complex in a recording and since we have a long experience with it,it is a very good marker to judge by. I too am amazed as each threshold is broken,but these discs enable me to get to the absolute bottom,if that is possible and I think it is.

Both these Annapolis recordings are the ones I use.

http://richardsonrecords.com/Home_Page.html
 
Last edited:

Fiddle Faddle

Member
Aug 7, 2015
548
2
16
Australia
Thanks Barry, This is great info. Your point about the noise floor of course is I think the greatest advantage to using some type of grounding. I have often asked myself how good can it get? Very good is my answer as even the tiniest drop in the noise floor seems to have a dramatic effect.


I fully concur that even the tinniest drops in the noise floor can have substantial results, especially in the digital domain. I consider one of the greatest audio myths to be that once you have a noise level that in itself is inaudible at normal listening volume, then that is all that matters - mission accomplished so to speak. My experience has been completely different, hence my own personal opinion that it is a myth. Whilst noise in itself is inaudible even on a "DDD" CD, for instance, it is still possible to hear the effect the noise floor has on what we do actually hear.

I've done many experiments over the last couple of years with 16 bit noise shaping, for example. I've experimented with many professional products and dozens of combinations - all mathematically perfect in their own way but each distributing noise in different parts of the 20 - 20 Khz spectrum. And even though I would have to amplify the noise itself by around 30 dB to even hear it at all, even at normal listening volume you can specifically hear it effect imaging, timbre and PRaT. More noise at the low end, for example, reduces PRaT, makes the bass itself less clear, slightly compromises imaging and can make the high end sound a little edgy with slightly "forward" sounding timbres compared to the 24 bit master. Even out the noise across the spectrum up to, say 15 Khz, and the whole presentation becomes clearer, imaging is more solid and timbre closer to the 24 bit original. But some might find this sound to be less subjectively pleasing as it is not necessarily as "organic" as when noise is added at lower frequencies.

I have maintained for a couple of years now that trying to work within a 16 bit envelope is impossible if accuracy of timbre, imaging and PRaT are the three goals to be achieved. But once you get to 18 bits, it is amazing just how much difference those 2 extra bits make - to my ears at any rate. It is still no substitute for a typical 21 bit noise floor that 24 bit components often have, but it comes very close.

And this is why I was so impressed with the Entreq gear. It seemed to give me a couple of free bits. Not in the true sense of course, but in order to achieve the same sound without Entreq versus having it, I had to create 44.1 Khz masters at 18 bits instead of 16 bits. And I think that is very high praise indeed for Entreq. Sure, it might not be measurable as such, but as I have said earlier, none of us hear (or should hear) the noise floor anyway. It is what the noise floor does to the music itself that is the problem.

As an aside, in all my studies of digital noise and the effect it has on the music itself, I came to a completely independent conclusion that I d have been a very happy ever after audiophile had the CD standard been 18/48, even if that meant short albums (or needing bigger hands to handle the bigger disks!). It was only after I came to that conclusion myself that I discovered Decca's in-house digital recording and editing system was also designed to work at 18/48 as Decca felt that this was what was required in order to exceed the best analogue standards of the time (which by then included the use of Dolby A noise reduction).
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
I fully concur that even the tinniest drops in the noise floor can have substantial results, especially in the digital domain. I consider one of the greatest audio myths to be that once you have a noise level that in itself is inaudible at normal listening volume, then that is all that matters - mission accomplished so to speak. My experience has been completely different, hence my own personal opinion that it is a myth. Whilst noise in itself is inaudible even on a "DDD" CD, for instance, it is still possible to hear the effect the noise floor has on what we do actually hear.

I've done many experiments over the last couple of years with 16 bit noise shaping, for example. I've experimented with many professional products and dozens of combinations - all mathematically perfect in their own way but each distributing noise in different parts of the 20 - 20 Khz spectrum. And even though I would have to amplify the noise itself by around 30 dB to even hear it at all, even at normal listening volume you can specifically hear it effect imaging, timbre and PRaT. More noise at the low end, for example, reduces PRaT, makes the bass itself less clear, slightly compromises imaging and can make the high end sound a little edgy with slightly "forward" sounding timbres compared to the 24 bit master. Even out the noise across the spectrum up to, say 15 Khz, and the whole presentation becomes clearer, imaging is more solid and timbre closer to the 24 bit original. But some might find this sound to be less subjectively pleasing as it is not necessarily as "organic" as when noise is added at lower frequencies.

I have maintained for a couple of years now that trying to work within a 16 bit envelope is impossible if accuracy of timbre, imaging and PRaT are the three goals to be achieved. But once you get to 18 bits, it is amazing just how much difference those 2 extra bits make - to my ears at any rate. It is still no substitute for a typical 21 bit noise floor that 24 bit components often have, but it comes very close.

And this is why I was so impressed with the Entreq gear. It seemed to give me a couple of free bits. Not in the true sense of course, but in order to achieve the same sound without Entreq versus having it, I had to create 44.1 Khz masters at 18 bits instead of 16 bits. And I think that is very high praise indeed for Entreq. Sure, it might not be measurable as such, but as I have said earlier, none of us hear (or should hear) the noise floor anyway. It is what the noise floor does to the music itself that is the problem.

As an aside, in all my studies of digital noise and the effect it has on the music itself, I came to a completely independent conclusion that I d have been a very happy ever after audiophile had the CD standard been 18/48, even if that meant short albums (or needing bigger hands to handle the bigger disks!). It was only after I came to that conclusion myself that I discovered Decca's in-house digital recording and editing system was also designed to work at 18/48 as Decca felt that this was what was required in order to exceed the best analogue standards of the time (which by then included the use of Dolby A noise reduction).

I think I said about 4 years ago "that is what you can't hear,that becomes hearable"...or something to that effect. No doubt that the extra bits do make a difference,because the noise floor increases(-98db) as the bit path rises. No doubt that redbook is not comparable to HDCD or other digital improvements,but in my experience all boats rise considerably and the gap lessens to a degree.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Micro, yes I do use a "classical" star ground scheme. Both entreq and I keep safety grounds in place,both use wires attached to system chassis(s) to achieve a heavier ground path. Does Entreq lift any grounds? I don't think so,if not I would doubt the ground is floating. All Entreq users observe the same thing I do,so it is hard for me to conclude some other principle is at work here. I think it is the same just done differently.

As far as I see the Entreq boxes are "floating" - they are not connected to anything and they are the opposite of a physical star grounding scheme. They operate separately of the safety ground and do not lift grounds - probably the only thing they have in common with your system. Just because an helicopter and plane can transport us by air we can not consider they operate by the same principles.
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
As far as I see the Entreq boxes are "floating" - they are not connected to anything and they are the opposite of a physical star grounding scheme. They operate separately of the safety ground and do not lift grounds - probably the only thing they have in common with your system. Just because an helicopter and plane can transport us by air we can not consider they operate by the same principles.

You are right in that I use a direct connection to earth ground and Entreq uses a sink which is a box filled with copper plates and some other material. Some contend this can't work,but I think it will. I prefer the direct connection back to the service panel or power company transformer,but from all the observations people acknowledge the "sink" concept is valid I believe.
 

Detlof

Member Sponsor
Nov 5, 2015
307
3
0
Now that there are many Tripoint and Entreq Tellus users and enough opinions formed. Are the sonic benefits of upgrading cables the same as adding a grounding device? I'm curious to what users think.....Also what has had a greater transformation in sonic's ,particularly like bass,clarity,soundstage and others...cables or grounding devices? Directed at grounding device users only please.

Here are my quick 2cents to your question: I haven't upgraded cables for years now, after settling in with Stealth Sakras. It was neutrality and speed I was after, especially in reproducing grand piano, which, as we all know, is basically a percussive instrument. Before I had experimented with Tripoint and the Entreq boxes, I carefully star grounded my entire system, which lowered the noise floor considerably. I cannot remember any cable exchange I had done in years past, which had that effect on my system. In my experience cables can be (mis)used for voicing, opening or clotting up the sound stage etc., but I cannot remember cables that added or removed "noise". What the grounding boxes did for my system, months after the star grounding was put into place, was simply to reduce the background noise some more. It is impossible for me to say, where in the frequency band I heard definite improvements. What struck me rather was a definite improvement in dynamic swings, which afforded me a more comfortable illusion of "realism", when S. Richter in one of his renderings of a Schubert sonata for example exploded from a ppp into a fff, maybe even a pppp into a thunderous ffff, with all the sonority of the lowest octave of The Steinway Grand spreading out in the listening space. Even though I use tubes both in preamplification and in the upper register of my tri-amped system, the difference between my ambient noise average in my listening space and my system volume set at fairly loud listening levels is only 7 db/z and 5db/z when feeding my amps directly from the dac. I would say, that the main improvement for me came from the star grounding. Tripoint on digital and Entreq on the rest were the icing on the cake.
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
Here are my quick 2cents to your question: I haven't upgraded cables for years now, after settling in with Stealth Sakras. It was neutrality and speed I was after, especially in reproducing grand piano, which, as we all know, is basically a percussive instrument. Before I had experimented with Tripoint and the Entreq boxes, I carefully star grounded my entire system, which lowered the noise floor considerably. I cannot remember any cable exchange I had done in years past, which had that effect on my system. In my experience cables can be (mis)used for voicing, opening or clotting up the sound stage etc., but I cannot remember cables that added or removed "noise". What the grounding boxes did for my system, months after the star grounding was put into place, was simply to reduce the background noise some more. It is impossible for me to say, where in the frequency band I heard definite improvements. What struck me rather was a definite improvement in dynamic swings, which afforded me a more comfortable illusion of "realism", when S. Richter in one of his renderings of a Schubert sonata for example exploded from a ppp into a fff, maybe even a pppp into a thunderous ffff, with all the sonority of the lowest octave of The Steinway Grand spreading out in the listening space. Even though I use tubes both in preamplification and in the upper register of my tri-amped system, the difference between my ambient noise average in my listening space and my system volume set at fairly loud listening levels is only 7 db/z and 5db/z when feeding my amps directly from the dac. I would say, that the main improvement for me came from the star grounding. Tripoint on digital and Entreq on the rest were the icing on the cake.

Detlof,you and I have very similar experiences,although I just kept increasing the pathway size. Your observation about the dynamic range is spot on and on some recordings I have to watch carefully as the power and saturation level increases to where I can no longer listen at previous gain levels.
 

Barry2013

VIP/Donor
Oct 12, 2013
2,305
487
418
Essex UK
Barry, just to give you what I have done and noticed. It is almost impossible to tell from a recording of musical instruments. My "investigation" disc is a recording of the USN chorale. You can tell how low your noise floor can go by how clear the voices are. The human voice in multiples is very complex in a recording and since we have a long experience with it,it is a very good marker to judge by. I too am amazed as each threshold is broken,but these discs enable me to get to the absolute bottom,if that is possible and I think it is.

Both these Annapolis recordings are the ones I use.

http://richardsonrecords.com/Home_Page.html

Thank you again Roger.
I am reminded of Ll21's criterion for assessing the effects of upgrades/tweaks in his system namely can you hear the words more clearly. Since he cited it I have relied upon it consistently in my own system.
During the day I usually listen to BBC FM radio through my system's Magnum Dynalab 109 tuner.Both popular and classical stations. I have increasingly noticed, particularly following more recent Entreq upgrades, how how much more I can now hear the lyrics of songs I am familiar with. Many of these recordings date from the sixties and seventies and I am hearing the words much more clearly than ever before. The same benefits are equally evident with LPs and CD/SACDs.
My experience therefore conclusively validates your approach.I am not familiar with the Annapolis recordings and will investigate further later in the week. I have also used Patricia Barbers Modern Cool SACD as a regular test disc, particularly track 11 Post Modern Blues. About 90 seconds into that track a piano kicks in and that segment has sounded better and better with the Entreq upgrades. This mirrors Detlof's findings albeit with a different genre.
The evidence in favour of Entreq grounding is growing all the time and the consistency of what different people with different systems report seems to me to be remarkably consistent and persuasive
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,471
11,366
4,410
I saw this thread earlier but was too busy to respond. so here goes....

with my signal (different than power) cable attributes and Entreq and Tripoint grounding attributes are interrelated but a bit different, as Entreq and Tripoint are different too. and in my case I use signal cables (Tara Labs Grandmaster Evolution w/HFX 2m RCA's) that have grounded jackets, to the Tripoint Troy Reference. so the cable benefits cross over to the grounding.

the various attributes are not only additive, but even complimentary where one gain uncovers more of the next gain, revealing more depth of the third gain, and so on. I also believe that tuning my room to eliminate reflective hash has allowed me to really hear the whole enchilada of grounding related benefits. a lower base line level of distortion sets the stage for excellent ROI on these products.

as far as which areas are more that of the signal cables, I'd say the most clear benefit is lower noise, blacker backgrounds, and more top end air. all three of those things do equal a lager, more defined, soundstage.

grounding through my Entreq Silver Tellus (signal path for my preamp and dac) mostly expands the soundstage and adds dynamic drive and liveliness.

grounding through my Entreq Poseidon (signal path on the negative speaker terminals of my dart amps for the 2 side boxes, and chassis grounding to all 4 of my bass tower amps to the middle box) mostly has really added bass articulation and location and nailed a spooky top to bottom cohesiveness in the whole frequency spectrum.

all my Entreq boxes use the Everest knobs which add to the tonal richness and clarity.

grounding through the Tripoint Troy Reference (preamp, dac, SGM server, tt arm board, tt power supply) was an immediate profound increase in texture, image projection, dynamic contrasts, mid-range refinement, and flow. like the music was supercharged.

none of the other items did what the Tripoint did in this area. did I say that the musical flow improved!!!!!

this Thursday my 3 Entreq Atlantic Minimus's arrive + 3 more Everests. so we will see what that does.
 
Last edited:

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
I saw this thread earlier but was too busy to respond. so here goes....

with me signal (different than power) cable attributes and Entreq and Tripoint grounding attributes are interrelated but a bit different, as Entreq and Tripoint are different too. and in my case I use signal cables (Tara Labs Grandmaster Evolution w/HFX 2m RCA's) that have grounded jackets, to the Tripoint Troy Reference. so the cable benefits cross over to the grounding.

the various attributes are not only additive, but even complimentary where one gain uncovers more of the next gain, revealing more depth of the third gain, and so on. I also believe that tuning my room to eliminate reflective hash has allowed me to really hear the whole enchilada of grounding related benefits. a lower base line level of distortion sets the stage for excellent ROI on these products.

as far as which areas are more that of the signal cables, I'd say the most clear benefit is lower noise, blacker backgrounds, and more top end air. all three of those things do equal a lager, more defined, soundstage.

grounding through my Entreq Silver Tellus (signal path for my preamp and dac) mostly expands the soundstage and adds dynamic drive and liveliness.

grounding through my Entreq Poseidon (signal path on the negative speaker terminals of my dart amps for the 2 side boxes, and chassis grounding to all 4 of my bass tower amps to the middle box) mostly has really added bass articulation and location and nailed a spooky top to bottom cohesiveness in the whole frequency spectrum.

all my Entreq boxes use the Everest knobs which add to the tonal richness and clarity.

grounding through the Tripoint Troy Reference (preamp, dac, SGM server, tt arm board, tt power supply) was an immediate profound increase in texture, image projection, dynamic contrasts, mid-range refinement, and flow. like the music was supercharged.

none of the other items did what the Tripoint did in this area. did I say that the musical flow improved!!!!!

this Thursday my 3 Entreq Atlantic Minimus's arrive + 3 more Everests. so we will see what that does.
Thanks Mike for your very specific observations. I find your comments between the Tripoint and Entreq quite interesting,especially given that both are engineered differently.
 

dbeau

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
204
168
148
OKC,USA
Help - need advice:
I have been following the 'grounding' discussions for months now as I feel it falls into the next step for my system improvement.
I can not understand the method of Tripoint, et. al. components but star grounding does make sense to me.
Is the Granite Ground Zero a first step with Tripoint, etc. following (additive) OR are they exclusive with only one needed?
This forum's topics on the subject are almost an information overload but valued by me - THANKS
Dave
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
Help - need advice:
I have been following the 'grounding' discussions for months now as I feel it falls into the next step for my system improvement.
I can not understand the method of Tripoint, et. al. components but star grounding does make sense to me.
Is the Granite Ground Zero a first step with Tripoint, etc. following (additive) OR are they exclusive with only one needed?
This forum's topics on the subject are almost an information overload but valued by me - THANKS
Dave
This device will improve the SQ...just as the rest will. If you could figure out how to adapt lower resistance cables that would be interesting. I would always use the preamp outlet and it’s panel screw as the connection back to panel ground because your preamp connects all sources,amplifiers,ect.
The most efficient single point system is to connect all preamp connected chassis to a copper bar with many fastener screws for very low resistance cable and mount that to your preamp chassis. Connect each cable to each chassis that has a Interconnect to your preamp. Your preamp powercord will make the necessary panel Connection to ground. A very simple and the most efficient method available.
Cost...cables 4 or 5 feet each zero gauge $30 available custom made with 5/16 ths connectors available on Ebay
Copper bar 12” L x 2” W $30 on EBay ,and drilling and tapping for cable connections and mounting holes by a machinist $100, necessary fasteners $30
So for $300 to $400 you can do what these other devices do and depending how many chassis you have it can look very clean and give the highest level of performance. My years of experience and experimentation give the same results or better than these other devices.
It is the same principle of rack mounting pro audio equipment and tie the equipment and rack to panel ground. Engineers have done this forever in recording studios. The only difference is your rack is the large low resistance cables tied to preamp panel ground.
What you’re doing is matching the studio ground level with your system. Hence why the incredible increase in system SQ....no mystery or magic...just common sense.
 
Last edited:

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