Entreq ground conditioners - what's the theory?

Agear and Atmosphere: Here's how I see it: I'm absolutely convinced there is, and has been, such a thing as bad grounding schemes in perhaps all manner of hifi gear up to now...happens all the time. But, I don't believe for a moment that alone can account for the differences I've witnessed in my own home from this kind of noise reduction...this seems to go far, far beyond any "textbook" definition of proper grounding (whether equipment, home or whatever). The reason I think it does so is because this kind of noise reduction seems to be closely identifying and resolving the real-world problems that have never been addressed by the established ee books...and, considering the frequently less stringent requirements for grounding outside the realm of A/V, maybe that's understandable. But, with the available lessons learned from modern quantum physics (and again on which I am no expert), I'm coming to believe in the possibility of the next generation of pioneering ee's giving us new applications of new materials and techniques. Alan says he didn't do anything but go back to how mother nature establishes a ground and tried not so much to take his cue from the literature...and also, for example, lessons learned from trial and error IN THE FIELD by various commercial entities - what happened to them when they tried to implement accepted and established principles - sometimes with success and sometimes not...a frank look at the underlying conditions behind why those efforts sometimes work and why they sometimes don't. After all, THAT sort of thing to me is the REAL classroom - what happens when something accepted is applied and it doesn't entirely work. It's from that kind of endevor that we eventually wind up with the textbooks. I think so many people seem to get that cart before the horse - as if textbooks (theories alone) are somehow the "bleeding edge" of technology - to me, that's pretty close to myth. Of course the more we add to the texts, the more things we can hope to (endevor to) accomplish, but the REAL advances come when we are confronted with the unexpected challenge and we need to re-examine what we think we know. After all, this is precisely how those wonderful textbooks came to be in the first place. They didn't spring forth from a vacuum, but from necessary real-word problem solving. In my view, the classroom textbook is actually the back end of the process - it's the real world that's the front end. What is taught today is applied (and corrected) tomorrow - only to be taught differently the day after...and on it goes. It's just that now the folks who are far more familiar than I with quantum physics are getting their chance to take a crack at the problem. I believe there IS such a thing as innovation (and, without knowing, it can conceivably come from virtually any quarter), but without that inside track (quantum physics, in this case), the consumer then has no one else to rely on but himself when trying to put himself in a position to recognize innovation even when he's first looking at it. And that, I grant you, is therefore not always an easy or straightforward thing to do...but, come to think of it FWIW, that much about innovation has been true as far back as I can remember.

I also think Alan has figured out a rather extreme method for manipulating Ohm's Law in order to lower resistance house-wide in a way that evidently has not been done before and that this has led to his remarkable 'monopoly' on his brand of applications (which he's currently very busy recombining every time he has a breakthrough in a given area) and this so far has allowed him to keep going and moving the ball forward - not only to the point of coming up with ever-higher-performing products that are comparatively expensive (some over $1k each), but those that overwhelmingly outperform his previous examples, yet at a small fraction of the cost, as well. So, right now the sky's the limit and nobody seems to be on to his game yet. I expect that will remain true for quite a while, but we'll have to see how long that lasts...

I think Atmasphere is spot on about poor grounding schemes. I have heard that before from Dale Pitcher at ID. That being said, I also believe there is more to this story as Ivan (and Alan) intonate....bravo for taking this field further.

Agear, I don't believe it's any coincidence that I'm having such good improvements in SQ investigating first balanced power, and now grounding. I live in a semi industrial area with light industrial (transformers/motors), internet booster/mobile phone aerials, and broadband streaming in almost every apartment in my block - all of this pumping out serious hash into the mains, and possibly electromagnetic fields in the atmosphere. So I need all the solutions to corrupted power, and polluting hash going.
I've just connected my SET monoblocks to the Entreq, to add to preamp, cdp and Straingauge energiser (5 ground leads in total). Further improvements being experienced.
Not a tech head so can't discuss too much, but it looks like the old objective (components must be grounded correctly already, so can't on principle sound any better with more grounding) versus subjective (they do, so there must be an explanation beyond simple specs).
From what the UK rep has to say, grounding happens in two planes, the component itself, and the signal itself, and it is the latter where emi/rf is likely a severe limiting factor.
Since the Silver Tellus plugs into spare rca/balanced sockets it works on the level of the signal, unlike Troy which attaches to equipment chassis' which may work more at component ground level.

The Tripoint stuff can be used in any capacity whether it be chassis or via signal inputs

I also think Alan has figured out a rather extreme method for manipulating Ohm's Law

Ohm's Law is immutable and cannot be 'manipulated'. This may be a poor choice of words but in the context it did not appear so. Ohm's Law is the foundation principle of electricity and electronics. Were it possible to 'manipulate' it, a new branch of physics would be created!

Also just a FWIW: So far all the schemes in audio that have made the claim of using 'quantum physics' have all been scams. Again, perhaps a poor choice of words to explain something else. But if a manufacturer starts using 'quantum physics' to explain to you how their equipment works, that would be a good time to turn around and run as hard as you can.

From what the UK rep has to say, grounding happens in two planes, the component itself, and the signal itself, and it is the latter where emi/rf is likely a severe limiting factor.

This statement is what I was getting at regarding the chassis as opposed to the circuit ground. However I should point out that if the two are grounded to different circuits, for example the chassis is at AC wiring ground and the circuit is at the ground potential of the stake in the garden, you could possibly damage the equipment if the two potentials are somehow significantly different. If so, the damage may result in loss of electrical/fire protection.

Most houses are already at the same ground potential as a stake in the yard (both our shop and my house are like this- you can't measure any voltage or RF voltage differences between the two, likely because the buildings' foundations are in very intimate contact with the earth). If you really are concerned about this, IMO you are better off having an electrician run a fused wire to the ground stake from the ground of your breaker box.

Now RF is still can be a problem, but IMO you are better off grounding the things that can re-radiate RF; ungrounded gutters (I have seen corrosion on the joints of gutters act as primitive diodes, causing the gutters to detect the radio signal and vibrate from its energy), metal screens in stucco, perhaps metal window screens near the audio equipment. Harry Pearson used to have terrible problems with RF at his home many years ago, until it was discovered that there was a metal screen in the ceiling of the structure. Once grounded the RF issues were gone.