How DOES the grounding boxes work?

[lmitche]

Can someone please tell me how to block a member?

[89reksal]

"The Entreq Tellus and Silver Tellus Grounding Boxes are an essential part of a high performance audio system. They help to lower the noise floor of all attached audio components by optimizing the relative ground potential which results in a much more musical presentation. The Entreq units do so without adding any sonic signature of their own, which is a remarkable achievement since this ensures a wide compatibility with solid-state and vacuum tube based low and high efficiency systems."   http://audiosensibility.com/blog/products-2/entreq-grounding-cables/

 

I just read that for the first time. I wanted to see if they had any thoughts since I knew they sold the cables. From reading that, it doesn't seem my idea of the box somehow adjusting the voltage of the ground plane is all that different from "optimizing the relative ground potential which results in a much more musical presentation." Maybe my idea isn't the nonsense so many have attempted to make it out to be?

 

As an aside, I hate to keep saying "my idea", my theory". I don't know how else to refer to it. I don't want to make it appear that I have to be right. It may seem that way but it's not.

 

 

[plissken]

10 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I heard back from Entreq today. Here is our email exchange. 

 

 

 

Hello Chris.

 

Nopp

Dont know how it have been done. He anyhow don´t use any of our cables.

All cables act like antennas. If you have right length, right metal , right area etc on the cable, you can pick up the most of  signals in the air, so ................

Perhaps any of the other brands, Tripoint, CAD, Nordost etc can help.

 

Best

PO

 

From: Chris Connaker

Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 3:41 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Grounding Box Adds Noise?

 

 

Hi Guys - Someone has posted measurements of one of your grounding boxes and says it adds noise. Can you comment on this or explain why this appears to be the case?

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/34650-how-does-the-grounding-boxes-work/?page=6#comment-694618

Chris Connaker

Founder
Computer Audiophile

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh dear lord.

 

Thanks Chris.

[christopher3393]

35 minutes ago, Fokus said:

 

Ever heard of Eratosthenes? Hint, this was a bloke who lived 2200 years ago. 

 

Good example. But then if you switch the example to how long geocentric worldviews survived backed by some rather exquisite geometry from Ptolemy, lasker's point can be made sensibly. I am in no way even remotely suggesting that Entreq's box puts us on the cusp of a scientific revolution. I think lasker's larger point is to ask why not spend a little more time on how the box might work, rather than debunk. I also think he has perceived patterns of response toward nonscientific audiophiles that he thinks are sometimes unhelpful, or unproductive at the very least, and that this in part motivates his challenge. I 'll just briefly repeat my own view that those who want the "equipment" part of this hobby to be more rational/empirical would be far better served by being more diplomatic.

 

The antenna suggestion is clearly the best so far, other than the possibility that the listener, for whatever reasons, is perceiving "improvement" without there being any physical change in the environment to account for that improvement, that the perception and interpretation of improvement is entirely  or almost entirely subjective, due to what might be a very complex combination of circumstances. I simply think we don't know enough about Cornan, his background, environment, etc. to explore this second possibility in a meaningful way. And I don't want to presume in a way that Cornan would find offensive.

[kumakuma]

11 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

"The Entreq Tellus and Silver Tellus Grounding Boxes are an essential part of a high performance audio system. They help to lower the noise floor of all attached audio components by optimizing the relative ground potential which results in a much more musical presentation. The Entreq units do so without adding any sonic signature of their own, which is a remarkable achievement since this ensures a wide compatibility with solid-state and vacuum tube based low and high efficiency systems."   http://audiosensibility.com/blog/products-2/entreq-grounding-cables/

 

I just read that for the first time. I wanted to see if they had any thoughts since I knew they sold the cables. From reading that, it doesn't seem my idea of the box somehow adjusting the voltage of the ground plane is all that different from "optimizing the relative ground potential which results in a much more musical presentation." Maybe my idea isn't the nonsense so many have attempted to make it out to be?

 

I think you need to consider the fact that Entreq may not actually have a clue how their product works.

[89reksal]

4 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

I think lasker's larger point is to ask why not spend a little more time on how the box might work, rather than debunk. I also think he has perceived patterns of response toward nonscientific audiophiles that he thinks are sometimes unhelpful, or unproductive at the very least, and that this in part motivates his challenge. I 'll just briefly repeat my own view that those who want the "equipment" part of this hobby to be more rational/empirical would be far better served by being more diplomatic.

 

+infinity

[Jud]

1 hour ago, lasker98 said:

I'm the only one in 22 pages of posts to post a possible theory

 

You have posted a theory, but I don't think it is a possible one, due to basics of the way electricity works.  I would ask two questions:

 

- Is there anything you can point to in the texts you used in training, for example, or any other source you may use, that leads you to the conclusion electrical potentials can adjust themselves without the existence of a circuit?

 

- If yes, what causes potentials to exist in the first place?  (I.e., if they are self-adjusting, why haven't they adjusted themselves without any need for various grounding measures?)

[89reksal]

3 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I think you need to consider the fact that Entreq may not actually have a clue how their product works.

 

I have no issue at all with that comment. it's entirely possible.

 

Just to clarify, that quote wasn't taken from Entreq, it was taken from the site I provided the link to.

[jabbr]

10 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

The antenna suggestion is clearly the best so far, other than the possibility that the listener, for whatever reasons, is perceiving "improvement" without there being any physical change in the environment to account for that improvemen

Antenna effect should not be blindly dismissed. Probably most all differences in analog cables can be broken down to capacitance & shielding -- shields are essentially antennas. Similarly twisted pairs operate on the principle that antenna effects cancel between each pair. See differential & common mode noise rejection.

[Jud]

Just now, lasker98 said:

 

I have no issue at all with that comment. it's entirely possible.

 

 

Yes, I agree with this as well.

 

I think you may have taken some posts as more oppositional than they really are.  We are all just trying to find plausible scenarios for how the box may "work," that being defined as changing the sound.  And we have had a whole bunch of folks talking about that from the very beginning.  For a little bit, we were discussing interconnection, until we learned the Entreq was only connected to the ground screw of a single piece of equipment by a single-conductor wire.  Since then, the only thing I find plausible as an explanation for an actual change in sound, given the way electricity works, is that the cable and the conductive material in the box connected to it are acting as an antenna, and bringing RFI noise into the ground side of @Cornan's system.  So a lot of people have given a plausible theory of how the Entreq might actually change the sound.

 

You are perhaps being a little restrictive in insisting on scenarios where "works" means *improves* rather than *changes* the sound.  People like objectively worse sound all the time.  Another member here, a working musician who once told a producer of a recording the size of the piano used in that recording just from listening (so damn fine ears), picked the higher jitter file in preference to a lower jitter file in a blind test here, as did I.  So I don't think it's reasonable (and on the basis of many experiments, scientific) to expect that what people like better will always be the sound with lower distortion.  Given that fact, I don't think it's reasonable to restrict our search to just what may improve the sound.

[christopher3393]

Just now, jabbr said:

Antenna effect should not be blindly dismissed. Probably most all differences in analog cables can be broken down to capacitance & shielding -- shields are essentially antennas. Similarly twisted pairs operate on the principle that antenna effects cancel between each pair. See differential & common mode noise rejection.

 

By all means, antenna effect seems likely to me. I think the concern was that this was perceived as a dismissive response. It does not have to be perceived that way. When things get heated, rationality is not always best served, is it?

 

BTW, I'm trouble by the dichotomy scientific knowledge / religious belief. I'd like to gently suggest that this may be fallacious.

[christopher3393]

"We believe that we know. We know that the others believe."

[Jud]

Just now, christopher3393 said:

 

 

I click "Quote" rather than "Edit" all the time myself. 

[jabbr]

4 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

BTW, I'm trouble by the dichotomy scientific knowledge / religious belief. I'd like to gently suggest that this may be fallacious.

Not sure why. I use religious belief as one I consider perfectly acceptable but not scientific. In science we first attempt to disprove. Not so in religion. That's why I suggest that pushback against an attempt to disprove is more religious than scientific. No value judgement intended.

 

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

I'd like to gently suggest that this may be fallacious

 

Well, you could think of monotheism as an early candidate for Unified Field Theory. 

[89reksal]

15 minutes ago, Jud said:

- Is there anything you can point to in the texts you used in training, for example, or any other source you may use, that leads you to the conclusion electrical potentials can adjust themselves without the existence of a circuit?

 

This is what I came up with a quick Google search. I'm sure there's more or better explanations but I think this makes the point:

 

"The open circuit is represented by the diagram on the right, where the battery pumps water up from a closed container at the bottom to another closed container at the top. As the battery pumps water the pressure in the bottom decreases and the pressure at the top increases, and at some point the pressure difference will get bigger than the pump can manage. You can use a more powerful pump (i.e. a higher voltage) but even this will reach a point where it can't pump any more water."  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45281/is-it-possible-to-flow-current-in-open-circuit

 

18 minutes ago, Jud said:

- If yes, what causes potentials to exist in the first place?  (I.e., if they are self-adjusting, why haven't they adjusted themselves without any need for various grounding measures?)

 

In the case of the component side, wouldn't it simply be the potential of the connection point, which would be a function of the component itself. The box side is obviously less clear. Is it the noise picked up by the cable somehow creating a potential within the box contents? Is it the box contents on their own? I don't know the answer to that.

[christopher3393]

10 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Not sure why. I use religious belief as one I consider perfectly acceptable but not scientific. In science we first attempt to disprove. Not religion.

 

I see what you are saying. Don't want to get too far off topic, but do you (or the several others who posted this dichotomy) then consign religious beliefs entirely to the realm of subjectivity? And why are these audiophile beliefs considered to be "religious"? Just because they are "beliefs"? That seems quite wrong to me.

[89reksal]

21 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Antenna effect should not be blindly dismissed. Probably most all differences in analog cables can be broken down to capacitance & shielding -- shields are essentially antennas. Similarly twisted pairs operate on the principle that antenna effects cancel between each pair. See differential & common mode noise rejection.

 

At no point have I, blindly or otherwise, dismissed the antenna effect. As I said in my original post "Maybe the noise that's being picked up is somehow carrying current from the box back to the connection point,...". That should make clear that the antenna idea was part of the consideration.

 

One of my biggest points that I've apparently failed to make is; ok, we'll assume it's acting as an antenna, but I don't believe that's all that's at work here. Is the antenna effect intentional and integral to the box "working"? Or is the antenna effect irrelevant to the process? I've asked multiple times if people believe it's acting as an antenna, then what's the purpose of the box and its contents? I don't recall getting a single answer other than those assuming the box is just a scam and it's only there to get more money out of the consumers.

[Speedskater]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Further to this: lasker, if indeed the Entreq is affecting the sound in @Cornan‘s system by acting as an antenna, it would do so by capturing radio waves (radio frequency interference, or RFI), then conducting that noise into the ground side of his system through the ground screw to which it’s attached.

Is that a clear explanation?

This would be true if the wire is directly connected to the chassis. But we sometimes read about the wire being connected to a RCA or XLR input. So if the RCA connector has a plastic insulator ring or the XLR connector pin #1 is not connected directly to the chassis, the wire can act as an interference antenna.

[89reksal]

32 minutes ago, Jud said:

I think you may have taken some posts as more oppositional than they really are.

Entirely possible.

33 minutes ago, Jud said:

You are perhaps being a little restrictive in insisting on scenarios where "works" means *improves* rather than *changes* the sound

I don't know where that's coming from. I don't recall ever saying or implying anything like that. If I did, it sure wasn't intentional. At one point I remember being asked what I meant by "works" and I gave a snarky reply that was most likely unjustified, but I never did give my explanation of "works".

[jabbr]

20 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

And why are these audiophile beliefs considered to be "religious"? Just because they are "beliefs"? That seems quite wrong to me.

Ah no, "religious beliefs" are the archetype of a belief that one would not consider subject to falsifiability. 

 

I was using this as an example of beliefs which are very common, accepted, yet non scientific. (The complaint seems to be that people are talking about why X isn't true rather than why X is true, and I'm indicating that's how science works)

[kumakuma]

15 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

what's the purpose of the box and its contents?

 

If you look at the photos on the site below, there is more metal connected to the terminals on the inside so the box essentially just makes the cables (antenna) longer. 

 

http://www.monoandstereo.com/2015/12/entreq-tellus-passive-ground-system.html

[89reksal]

5 minutes ago, Speedskater said:

This would be true if the wire is directly connected to the chassis. But we sometimes read about the wire being connected to a RCA or XLR input. So if the RCA connector has a plastic insulator ring or the XLR connector pin #1 is not connected directly to the chassis, the wire can act as an interference antenna.

 

The point of the RCA or XLR connection is to connect to the signal ground. It's using those connectors, through their ground terminals only, to make that connection.

[Speedskater]

11 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

The point of the RCA or XLR connection is to connect to the signal ground. It's using those connectors, through their ground terminals only, to make that connection.

The EMI/RFI experts point-out that the shield needs to be connected to the chassis at the connector or the shield will act as an RFI interference antenna not a shield.

The XLR pin #1 is only a shield it should not be connected to audio circuit ground. Yes there is conductivity between audio circuit ground, the chassis and the shield, but pin #1 is the shield and connects to the chassis.

 

So if a grounding box is connected to one of those connectors, the box and it's wire could be acting as an interference antenna.

[89reksal]

8 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

If you look at the photos on the site below, there is more metal connected to the terminals on the inside so the box essentially just makes the cables (antenna) longer. 

So you're saying the box is simply an antenna? Quite possible but to say "so the box essentially just makes the cables (antenna) longer" seems to be eliminating any other possibilities. Not sure if that's your intent but that's how I'm reading it.

 

If it's only purpose is as an antenna, why not just use a specifically designed antenna and eliminated the box completely (again assuming that the box itself isn't a scam)? I can't see the contents of that box acting as a better antenna then even the most basic antenna design.

 

Would it make more sense that the idea of the box is either a source or destination for some kind of current? And the box contents somehow facilitate that process?