AJ Soundfield Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 6 hours ago, Speed Racer said: You realize you said absolutely nothing in those two paragraphs, right? You might as well have typed: "TUGfjjlkdjl ldfjlj dlkjlk flkjdfl [t][y[pou eioywgfbkhg h;ghkgokjg sdfgdkin. LKHJkjhdgljortopijgmgf;dk dljojcgljkld ugjhit kjgj['hlhk uydf." Expect a lot more of the same. And 20+million extolling Power Bracelets can't be all wrong, now can they.. Link to comment
AJ Soundfield Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 3 hours ago, Cornan said: I do shake the box every 6 months or so to reduce any plausible risk of saturation If it's completely sealed, how are the cats peeing in it??? sarvsa 1 Link to comment
AJ Soundfield Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 29 minutes ago, Jud said: to show whether or not the Entreq and its cable make an audible difference due to serving as an antenna... Hook it to a tuner or AVR he and/or his friends have. Bet it won't happen. sarvsa 1 Link to comment
Jud Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 26 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said: Hook it to a tuner or AVR he and/or his friends have. Bet it won't happen. He’s already mentioned he doesn’t have either. My suggestion is (1) a lot simpler than bothering a friend, and (2) will show whether the Entreq is acting as an antenna as currently installed in his system, rather than whether it can if hooked to a friend’s tuner or AVR. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
AJ Soundfield Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, Jud said: My suggestion is (1) a lot simpler 4 hours ago, Cornan said: Considering that the Entreq grounding boxes peak their performance after 24 hrs this is not something I am prepared to do. It would take me and a friend 480 hrs to complete with confident result. Never mind the extra time changing the gears and the possible audio memory loss inbetween. ? Guess not. Maybe I am a mind reader. (or we've seen this movie before, many, many times) Link to comment
Popular Post Fokus Posted July 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2017 56 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said: If it's completely sealed, how are the cats peeing in it??? It's Schrodinger's cat in there. It may pee. Or not. sarvsa and Teresa 2 Link to comment
Popular Post mmerrill99 Posted July 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2017 8 minutes ago, Fokus said: It's Schrodinger's cat in there. It may pee. Or not. It definitely won't pee if you look at it - looking changes the ability to pee as we all know ? Teresa and Don Hills 2 Link to comment
Popular Post 89reksal Posted July 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2017 12 hours ago, fas42 said: Ahhh, I see the objectivists have called a victory here - they've pummelled the other side mercilessly, and the latter have retreated to "lick their wounds" ... pity, that ... That's the usual outcome with any of these types of threads. People with a genuine interest in a topic start out trying to have a discussion. Then the same group of Merry Pranksters swoop in and destroy another thread. Then they're left to discuss off topic crap amongst themselves until one of them spies a new victim they can all swoop in on. I picture them as kids running along the beach destroying all the other kids sand castles because for whatever reason they wouldn't build one for themselves but sure as heck, no one else was going to have one while they were around. Pathetic,. but we'll get to watch it all over again the next time some poor innocent starts a thread about something they have no experience with. it just dawned on me that their actions could be considered a form of bullying. But I guess that's ok. Teresa, Wladimir and MikeyFresh 3 Link to comment
Popular Post AJ Soundfield Posted July 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, lasker98 said: People with a genuine interest in a topic Would genuinely want any plausible explanations, not just one or two predetermined ones. Quote I picture them as kids running along the beach destroying all the other kids sand castles Or adults telling said kids Santa isn't real. Yeah, there will be a lot of backlash and despair, but it really doesn't make the adults mean. All in eye of beholder. Wladimir, Teresa and sarvsa 2 1 Link to comment
marce Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 15 minutes ago, lasker98 said: That's the usual outcome with any of these types of threads. People with a genuine interest in a topic start out trying to have a discussion. Then the same group of Merry Pranksters swoop in and destroy another thread. Then they're left to discuss off topic crap amongst themselves until one of them spies a new victim they can all swoop in on. I picture them as kids running along the beach destroying all the other kids sand castles because for whatever reason they wouldn't build one for themselves but sure as heck, no one else was going to have one while they were around. Pathetic,. but we'll get to watch it all over again the next time some poor innocent starts a thread about something they have no experience with. it just dawned on me that their actions could be considered a form of bullying. But I guess that's ok. Read the title of the thread, its how they work. That's what some of us have been discussing, just because it dosen't fit with your views or wotever, is no use crying about it. Many of us have put forward educated views about what is really happening here, because those views don't fit some peoples desires they are dismissed and we are called bully's and all the rest of the rubbish being sprouted. Its like trying to discuss stuff with kids with their fingers in their ears howling so they can't hear whats being said. I would question who is being pathetic. Its the same rubbish that comes out every-time when an audiophile belief is questioned, we've already had the science is bad/wrong etc. pull downs. A farmer discovers a box of muck is a miracle EMC cure, but only sells it to true blue audiophiles, when measurements show box works like an antenna and adds noise, no comment. kumakuma 1 Link to comment
Popular Post 89reksal Posted July 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2017 11 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said: Would genuinely want any plausible explanations, not just one or two predetermined ones. My understanding is that this is the entire reason for this thread? Have you presented any plausible explanations? All I remember from you is a series of smart ass comments. Do you believe that's a positive contribution to the thread? The Computer Audiophile, MikeyFresh and Teresa 3 Link to comment
Popular Post 89reksal Posted July 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, marce said: Read the title of the thread, its how they work. That's what some of us have been discussing, just because it dosen't fit with your views or wotever, is no use crying about it No. What you're discussing is why they don't work. That's not what the thread title is asking. Maybe that's part of the problem around here? A reading comprehension epidemic? MikeyFresh and Teresa 2 Link to comment
marce Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 They work as an antenna, been saying it all along, as well as saying they DO NOT work as the advertising states, the acting as a quite earth is all pure BS. The thread is asking how they work, the base point of that is Entreq's claim they act as a clean ground sucking all that bad noise away, only in a Hans Anderson story would this be true... Link to comment
jabbr Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, lasker98 said: No. What you're discussing is why they don't work. That's not what the thread title is asking. Maybe that's part of the problem around here? A reading comprehension epidemic? Here is the issue: you are asking a religious question that has the appearance of a scientific question. The answer to your question is that they work because you believe they work. From a scientific point if view, people will require either a schematic or a disproof of the null hypothesis. The best schematic correlate is an antenna -- now prove that it's something other? But that's the scientific answer. Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
Popular Post 89reksal Posted July 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, marce said: They work as an antenna That's about as helpful as responding to a question about how a car works by saying it works like a wheel. Teresa and Wladimir 2 Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 11 minutes ago, jabbr said: The answer to your question is that they work because you believe they work. No. That would be your answer. Not the answer. Why should your unproven belief carry any more weight than my unproven belief, although my unproven believe is backed up by years of positive user feedback, where yours is backed up by.....? Teresa 1 Link to comment
Jud Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said: Guess not. Maybe I am a mind reader. (or we've seen this movie before, many, many times) Wasn’t my suggestion the OP responded to there, so doesn’t seem relevant. He’s mentioned he may try my suggestion. If he does, I’ll be interested to read about the outcome. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
jabbr Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, lasker98 said: No. That would be your answer. Not the answer. Why should your unproven belief carry any more weight than my unproven belief, although my unproven believe is backed up by years of positive user feedback, where yours is backed up by.....? I'm perfectly happy with unproven hypotheses. You tell me then: There are a group of people who believe something strongly and have believed for years. I am suggesting that this is a religious belief. You are praying to a box. People pray to all sorts of things, candles, lights, trees, mountains, crystals. I think praying to a box filled with tourmaline sand is perfectly acceptable -- it is indeed special sand. I have no problem with religion, nor people that prefer red outhouses. nor silver automobiles. These are all perfectly fine preferences. The belief does not have the characteristics of a scientific belief -- if you wish to ask a scientific question then at a very minimum you must submit to the requirement of falsifiability. So disprove the null hypothesis and that is how to give your belief scientific credence. Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 27 minutes ago, lasker98 said: That's about as helpful as responding to a question about how a car works by saying it works like a wheel. Maybe a better analogy would be someone asking how a radio works and your response is "it's an antenna". Do you believe that's a useful response? Now I'm responding to myself. I've officially bottomed out. Teresa 1 Link to comment
89reksal Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, jabbr said: I'm perfectly happy with unproven hypotheses. You tell me then: There are a group of people who believe something strongly and have believed for years. I am suggesting that this is a religious belief. You are praying to a box. People pray to all sorts of things, candles, lights, trees, mountains, crystals. I think praying to a box filled with tourmaline sand is perfectly acceptable -- it is indeed special sand. I have no problem with religion, nor people that prefer red outhouses. nor silver automobiles. These are all perfectly fine preferences. The belief does not have the characteristics of a scientific belief -- if you wish to ask a scientific question then at a very minimum you must submit to the requirement of falsifiability. So disprove the null hypothesis and that is how to give your belief scientific credence. I really have no response to this. Link to comment
Jud Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 40 minutes ago, marce said: They work as an antenna, been saying it all along Or at least, given the basics of the way electricity works, this is the only plausible way the box and its cable might affect what the OP is hearing that has been suggested so far. lasker, the OP has made it clear he is entertaining any sort of respectful discussion in the thread, so I do not take comments that say the Entreq can’t work as described, and giving reasons for that conclusion, as being out of bounds. One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
marce Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 33 minutes ago, lasker98 said: That's about as helpful as responding to a question about how a car works by saying it works like a wheel. Whats hard to understand, they act like an antenna, how else can I put it: Like an antenna they are. Antenna like they work. What more do you want me to say... Link to comment
marce Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 22 minutes ago, lasker98 said: No. That would be your answer. Not the answer. Why should your unproven belief carry any more weight than my unproven belief, although my unproven believe is backed up by years of positive user feedback, where yours is backed up by.....? A few centuries of discoveries in physics and electronics... Link to comment
marce Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 8 minutes ago, lasker98 said: Maybe a better analogy would be someone asking how a radio works and your response is "it's an antenna". Do you believe that's a useful response? Now I'm responding to myself. I've officially bottomed out. No you are acting rather child like I am afraid to say... We have said numerous times it is an unterminated wire fastened to the Ground pin of an input, it picks up RF noise from the surroundings and injects it into the ground where it is plugged in, like an antenna, HOW ELSE CAN I PUT, I CANT PUT IT ANY SIMPLER FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND. Grow up. Link to comment
Jud Posted July 13, 2017 Share Posted July 13, 2017 1 minute ago, marce said: Whats hard to understand, they act like an antenna, how else can I put it: Like an antenna they are. Antenna like they work. What more do you want me to say... 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? One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Recommended Posts