The Comparison Thread for Recovery USB Reclocker, the Regen and similar devices... (Curated Thread)

[westy]

cpvniii,

I could not get the Intona to receive a signal (the light did not come on with the Intona) when using the Recovery to feed the Intona.

How did you accomplish it?

Right now, with the Intona Feeding the Recovery and then the Recovery going into the Dac, I am getting ok sound but,I think the soundstage has shrunk compared to using the Intona solo.

I'm using all Curious cables and I have a linear power supply on the Recovery.

 

Do you guys think the Recovery needs some break in time? Its been connected about 4 hours.

[devs]

The way I read Richard's/W4S's posts is that the RUR needs the 5V present for handshake purposes only. It's current draw is not specified. The Intona is perfectly capable to provide the 5V voltage up to a certain current draw. Up to around 300mA if I'm not mistaken, after that the voltage gradually drops to 4.5V. This is because it itself requires and uses USB bus power. This assuming there's 500mA to start with from the USB port.

 

(Edit: this post was a response to a post that has been deleted)

[REShaman]

The way I read Richard's/W4S's posts is that the RUR needs the 5V present for handshake purposes only. It's current draw is not specified. The Intona is perfectly capable to provide the 5V voltage up to a certain current draw. Up to around 300mA if I'm not mistaken, after that the voltage gradually drops to 4.5V. This is because it itself requires and uses USB bus power. This assuming there's 500mA to start with from the USB port.

 

Hello devs,

 

Thank you for translating in tech speak which I "stink" at. Hence my reason for going to the designer, what's his name? I'll think of it in time. Appreciate your reply. I notice you employ the devices that help you help us. For that I appreciate your post. I am sure there are knowledgable members who have opinions on what EJ Sarmento, yikes, I can see, and remember his name, intends. This thread is a comparison thread for members who use the devices to compare, it's for those members and for members who have an opinion about everything.

 

With appreciation for helping one member sort this out as a member who employs the very devices we are comparing.

 

Best,

Richard

[Mitch2]

Recovery arrived this week. Substituted for the Regen. Signal path: Antipodes DX/AQ Jitterbug/0.8M Curious/Recovery/Curious Link/Metrum Pavane.

A second AQ Jitterbug is installed on the unpowered USB output of the DX.

Early observations are that the Recovery sounds quite good and somewhat different from the Regen. Both the Regen and Recovery sound better than Curious direct from DX to Pavane. Cannot say which I like better yetk between the Recovery and the Regen, because I have not yet seriously compared them. I need to stop reading this site since I now wonder if I need to add the Intona.

Any of you here on the comparison thread have any experience with the SOtM tX-USB hub? Anyone compare that to the Recovery or Regen?

Cheers

[cpvniii]

I am not sure why it works as it should not. But the INTONA works before or after the RUR...with curious cables. The intona only puts out 500mA...or 1/10 of 5A. Further homework is required on my part.

[cpvniii]

DEVS: I thought it was up to 500mA. Please explain so I can understand how 500mA drives a unit requiring more.

thx

Paul

[cpvniii]

Recovery arrived this week. Substituted for the Regen. Signal path: Antipodes DX/AQ Jitterbug/0.8M Curious/Recovery/Curious Link/Metrum Pavane.

A second AQ Jitterbug is installed on the unpowered USB output of the DX.

Early observations are that the Recovery sounds quite good and somewhat different from the Regen. Both the Regen and Recovery sound better than Curious direct from DX to Pavane. Cannot say which I like better yetk between the Recovery and the Regen, because I have not yet seriously compared them. I need to stop reading this site since I now wonder if I need to add the Intona.

Any of you here on the comparison thread have any experience with the SOtM tX-USB hub? Anyone compare that to the Recovery

Cheers

Mitch2: Let us know. There are 2 things I am sure about.

The RUR is not as finicky in passing a USB signal as other gadgets.

It already sounds superior to the other gadget.

[cpvniii]

In my experience that does not involve more than one device at a time, the RUR thrives on 9V. But that assessment is up to you. I just returned the AQJB X2 to the Full Loom CC to the Recovery and then removed one and posted my review at the Recovery thread.

 

Thank you for the variety of connections when employing multiple device in line.

 

Best,

Richard

 

Hi Richard:

I get that most choose to test one variable at a time. This has validity. However, in my situation I have been listening to the IUI (sic) in line by itself. So I am only adding one new variable to my system in adding the RUR.

I tend to listen for system synergy.....do components work well together? Does it sound musical? Does a component/cable introduce any unappealing artifacts to the listening experience?

 

When I owned my shop, after system set up in the four listening rooms, I introduced one variable at a time when adding/subtracting to the system. And now at home, I have introduced 1 new variable in adding the RUR to my system. I was extremely happy running the IUI alone between the computer and the dac via Curious Cable "loom"...(CCL ?). The IUI sound was significantly better than the Regen sound. And the IUI sounded better alone than in tandem with the Regen. (*In my system).

 

One more thing. The recognition of the particular boxes in line is extremely important. Before there can be a hand shake the computer, the 'box' (IUI, RUR or Regen) and the dac must know that there are three units in play. You have done a very good job of explaining this as you turn everything off and then make your changes. Then, upon 'turn on' they recognize each and shake hands. This seems to me, in my experience and in my system, to be extremely important. For those who have recognition problems, turning off the digital system to add or subtract components seems to be the way to go. keep up the good work. Both of your threads are well

documented. I will report later, after the RUR has some serious time on it, as to how the system sounds with and without it. However, I can concur that after just a few hours that it seems a very special unit !

[westy]

So Cpvniii, Do you prefer the Intona unit before or after the Recovery?

So far with the Recovery after the Intona the sound seems more closed in than when I ran the Intona solo. The Recovery has about 20 hours on it.

[cpvniii]

So Cpvniii, Do you prefer the Intona unit before or after the Recovery?

 

So far with the Recovery after the Intona the sound seems more closed in than when I ran the Intona solo. The

Recovery has about 20 hours on it.

 

Hi Westy:

Too soon to make any subjective opinions as my RUR only has about 12 hours of music through it.

What I can say is that the Intona alone between my computer and dac was the finest sounding 'box' I have ever had in my system. The music was clear and alive...with details present that were like new discoveries of old familiar recordings. I can also say that I agree that my system sounded different when I move the Intona to the position where it was feeding the RUR versus the opposite of the RUR feeding the Intona. I will be able to tell more after some hours on the Intona.

 

I do know this....every system is different, Every room is different. Every set of ears/expectations/preferences is different. You know the results you are getting and you will make the choices that maximize results in your listening to your system in your room ! Trust your ears and your perceptions.

 

ps: I just changed my system set up to Computer-Curious-RUR-curious-Intona-genric 6 inch cable-dac. It does sound better this way....at least for now. You are correct in your statement about the reverse set up sounding closed in...at least in my opinion.

[Janke]

Recovery arrived this week. Substituted for the Regen. Signal path: Antipodes DX/AQ Jitterbug/0.8M Curious/Recovery/Curious Link/Metrum Pavane.

A second AQ Jitterbug is installed on the unpowered USB output of the DX.

Early observations are that the Recovery sounds quite good and somewhat different from the Regen. Both the Regen and Recovery sound better than Curious direct from DX to Pavane. Cannot say which I like better yetk between the Recovery and the Regen, because I have not yet seriously compared them. I need to stop reading this site since I now wonder if I need to add the Intona.

Any of you here on the comparison thread have any experience with the SOtM tX-USB hub? Anyone compare that to the Recovery or Regen?

Cheers

 

I will. I have got them all - including the same DAC and USB cabling. The difference is that I use the OR5 to convert the USB signals into spdif/BNC. When the RUR arrives next week I´m planning to compare them after the proper 100 hours of burn-in of the RUR. Interesting to see how my tandem Regen´s will come out of it. I have been very happy using them to reduce the Intona jitter.

[REShaman]

Hi Richard:

I get that most choose to test one variable at a time. This has validity. However, in my situation I have been listening to the IUI (sic) in line by itself. So I am only adding one new variable to my system in adding the RUR.

I tend to listen for system synergy.....do components work well together? Does it sound musical? Does a component/cable introduce any unappealing artifacts to the listening experience?

 

When I owned my shop, after system set up in the four listening rooms, I introduced one variable at a time when adding/subtracting to the system. And now at home, I have introduced 1 new variable in adding the RUR to my system. I was extremely happy running the IUI alone between the computer and the dac via Curious Cable "loom"...(CCL ?). The IUI sound was significantly better than the Regen sound. And the IUI sounded better alone than in tandem with the Regen. (*In my system).

 

One more thing. The recognition of the particular boxes in line is extremely important. Before there can be a hand shake the computer, the 'box' (IUI, RUR or Regen) and the dac must know that there are three units in play. You have done a very good job of explaining this as you turn everything off and then make your changes. Then, upon 'turn on' they recognize each and shake hands. This seems to me, in my experience and in my system, to be extremely important. For those who have recognition problems, turning off the digital system to add or subtract components seems to be the way to go. keep up the good work. Both of your threads are well

documented. I will report later, after the RUR has some serious time on it, as to how the system sounds with and without it. However, I can concur that after just a few hours that it seems a very special unit !

 

Hello cpvniii,

 

Thank you for your kind remarks.

 

Yes, I agree entirely with your admonition for a valid methodology. When I began with the Regen I added one element at a time. As you observed. I always turned off the system and as I leave my W4S Dac2 DSDse, STP-SE Stage 2 preamp, SX1000 mono blocks "on" 24/7 and Bryston 10B Electronic Crossover and JL Audio F112 X2, I turn them off as well. Added the Regen and Mean Well and determined the SQ after turning on the whole system. Then added the JS-2 and powered the Regen removing the Meanwell at 7.5 volts. The JS-2 at 7, pre-set by Alex, in my opinion was better. But members were reporting different voltage settings, so I tried 9V and that had a better "feel" to the output. Less about how it sound and more about how it felt. I realize this is a subjective assessment. Then added the MMK to my Mac Mini (like open heart surgery) and powered the Mac Mini by the JS-2, DC2 at 12V. In my open it all came together and sounded much better.

 

One AQJB was added to the LightSpeed to the USB output port with the system shut down. Assessed for a day or two. Then a second AQJB was added to the next USB output port in standalone mode but with a six inch extender as the two AQJB can't fit side by side. Turned the system back on and assessed the addition of the second AQJB.

 

At that time the LightSpeed 0.8m (Standard, red) was employed. When I added the CRL200mm to replace the hard adapter, I shut down the system, but stopped after the SX1000, leaving the Bryston and F112 X2 "on". And assessed the CRL200mm for for days. I ordered the Curious Cable 0.8m. And added that cable after shutting down the system including the SX1000 X2.

 

After 100+ hours on the Full Loom CC, the RUR arrived. Shut down the system, removed the AQJB X2 and replaced the Regen with the RUR. No AQJB X2 to be clear. Just the RUR with the CC08m to the Recovery to the CRL200mm to the W4S Dac2 DSDse. Turned the system back on, checked the vertical green lights, and for four days added 100+ hours to the RUR. With the RUR at 100+ hours and the Full Loom CC at 200+ hours, I shut down the system, connected the SMPS 9V supplied with the RUR, turned on the system, played three full albums employing Amarra Symphony with iRC in Playlist mode, while I wrote my first review of the RUR but using the SMPS supplied. Then for several days left the SMPS and listened.

 

Removed the SMPS 9V and returned the JS-2 custom cable from DC1 at 9V to the RUR. Concluded that while close in performance with the SMPS 9V at 7.5-8.0 out of 10, the JS-2, DC1 9V at 9.5-10.0 out of 10 was preferred.

 

I also removed the the RUR and connected the CC08m by itself to the W4S Dac2 DSDse. Was it better alone than the LightSpeed alone? I would call it a tie or so close as not to be a clear preference of one over the other. But with the Full Loom CC and the RUR, there was no comparison. I preferred the Recovery/Full Loom CC to the Regen/Full Loom CC.

 

After several days, I was curious (no pun intended) about returning one AQJB at a time to determine what, if anything, the AQJB added to the RUR. Each time I made a change the system is turned off, so I'll stop explaining this.

 

I wasn't the only person interested in what the AQJB might accomplish. So was EJ. I returned the AQJB to the CC08m, turned on the system, confirmed the 2 vertical green dots were lit, and listened. I was confounded by the result. While the addition of the AQJB improved the SQ with the Regen/LightSpeed/hardadapter the addition of the AQJB with the CC08m/Recovery/CRL200mm added a gloss of brighter, digital, colder/harder SQ but also maintained the clarity of sound. It removed the gorgeous SQ with just the RUR in line. I did not care for the change.

 

Shut down the system and added the second AQJB in standalone with extender cable next to the AQJB connected to the CC08m and listened. It did not change the result. I did care for the result. Turned off the system, removed the first AQJB and left the standalone AQJB with extender. The improvement was dramatic. The SQ I find to be the best I have experienced returned. And I was relieved. Do I leave the second AQJB installed? I removed the second AQJB after turning off the system. And turned the system back on but NO sound from my main system. No vertical lights. I removed the CC08m from the USB output port from the Mac Mini, and returned the cable. The vertical lights were lit. Then restarted my Mac Mini. Everything was restored. I don't think the restart was necessary. The RUR with the addition of one AQJB alone is a toss up. I haven't returned it, but it didn't hurt when installed. Maybe I'll return the one AQJB.

 

My experience with the Recovery and the Full Loom CC has been the best in SQ sonic signature quality I have ever experienced. The Regen improved but the SQ that accompanied its inclusion along with other changes in low/mid bass response and a slightly blurry mids and the addition of an glossy edgy, brighter, even harsh overly digital SQ was unacceptable to me and bordered on fatiguing. It removed me from the enjoyment of the music, as I was constantly reminded of what I was hearing that did not match what I prefer. The RUR and the Full Loom CC has provided me with the best SQ ever. My outcome isn't to denigrate the Regen at all. It's to deliver the enjoyment of music to me and to provide a context for others to consider what might deliver the same or similar to their system. If it does, wonderful. It's a splendid outcome.

 

Thank you for your attention. I tend to write long posts. So peruse as you please. And EJ Sarmento who I have had a relationship as customer since 2011, delivers the best customer service I have experienced. And so does Alex Crespi.

 

No experience with the IUI or the Revive. But others have and this thread is a resource for all of us who have committed to any of these devices and seek to compare them in actual experience and convey that experience to the rest of us. But one must have these devices in their system for this thread to be on topic.

 

The music's the thing; the equipment seduces.

 

Best,

Richard

[Mitch2]

I will. I have got them all - including the same DAC and USB cabling. The difference is that I use the OR5 to convert the USB signals into spdif/BNC. When the RUR arrives next week I´m planning to compare them after the proper 100 hours of burn-in of the RUR. Interesting to see how my tandem Regen´s will come out of it. I have been very happy using them to reduce the Intona jitter.

Hi Janke, so you are running the Curious cables and RUR out of your source and into the OR5 then bnc into the Pavane? A little off-topic but can I understand your comparison findings will relate how the RUR and others affect the sound when running into the OR5, and that you find the USB to OR5 to bnc connection into the Pavane to be superior to using the Pavane's USB input, regardless of the up-front add-ons to the USB string? Thanks.

[Janke]

Hi Janke, so you are running the Curious cables and RUR out of your source and into the OR5 then bnc into the Pavane? A little off-topic but can I understand your comparison findings will relate how the RUR and others affect the sound when running into the OR5, and that you find the USB to OR5 to bnc connection into the Pavane to be superior to using the Pavane's USB input, regardless of the up-front add-ons to the USB string? Thanks.

 

Hi Mitch2, the short answer is yes. It is better. When I compare different devices, the USB to Spdif converter and the DAC are considered to be one unit. The quality of this unit (or a single DAC) in a system is probably of significant importance to the degree of improvement that all these devices might do the USB signal. In my system the Jitterbugs and the AQVOX 5V bus power LPS did not work as advertised and presumed. They are now "retired". I´m eager to try the RUR and check out how it compares.

[westy]

Recap and my conclusion.

 

The Recovery unit now has about 35 hours on it. I have been playing some burn in disc's through it non stop.

I tried connecting the Recovery unit feeding its output to the Intona, but that connection would not work and the Intona light shows no signal. So, then I tried the other way around with the Intona feeding its output to the Recovery but the sound is extremely congested.

 

Today, I tried the Recovery on its own (without the Intona unit connected) and the sound is still not as good as the Intona is solo.

 

So far, its just ok. But, it cannot compare to the Intona in soundstage and purity of sound. I still have it burning in on another computer while I listen to the Main rig with the Intona.

 

I may just keep the Recovery unit to use when I am backing up my Music to another external hardrive.

[cpvniii]

Recap and my conclusion.

 

The Recovery unit now has about 35 hours on it. I have been playing some burn in disc's through it non stop.

I tried connecting the Recovery unit feeding its output to the Intona, but that connection would not work and the Intona light shows no signal. So, then I tried the other way around with the Intona feeding its output to the Recovery but the sound is extremely congested.

 

Today, I tried the Recovery on its own (without the Intona unit connected) and the sound is still not as good as the Intona is solo.

 

So far, its just ok. But, it cannot compare to the Intona in soundstage and purity of sound. I still have it burning in on another computer while I listen to the Main rig with the Intona.

 

I may just keep the Recovery unit to use when I am backing up my Music to another external hardrive.

 

Hi Westy,

i concur about the Intona. It is, at this point superior sounding to the RUR. The RUR is superior sounding compared to Regen. All compared with the same curios cable .8 meter and Curios Regen link (8"). I am curious to here the RUR after 100 hours. I only have 28 hrs on it presently. Thx, Paul.

[Yucca06]

So, do you keep only the Intona in your system, or Intona+Regen (as seen in your signature) ?

[cpvniii]

So, do you keep only the Intona in your system, or Intona+Regen (as seen in your signature) ?

I am not sure if that question was directed to me or to another. My answer would be that on my playback side the Regen is retired. I am feeding the Intona with a signal processed through the RUR VIA Curious cables. The experience at this time is that the sound I get from the Intona alone is superior to the RUR alone. Consequently, after the RUR fully breaks in I will determine if it enhances the Intona or not. The Intona is my gold standard. It stays....no matter what else developes. Thx, Paul

[Guidof]

After about 100 hours on the RUR, I was able to compare it to the REGEN.

 

In my system, the RUR sounds clearer and cleaner than the REGEN, but unfortunately it also sounds desenbodied, almost as if playing in an anechoic chamber. As a result, the continuousness of the music is lost. The REGEN sounds clearer, cleaner, and more detailed than the straight, plain vanilla USB.

 

The RUR required 5V feed on USB power, which the REGEN did not. Also, the REGEN was powered from a Breeze Audio (El Cheapo) linear power supply, while the RUR was powered from the provided wall wart. So the comparison was not entirely on an even field. Still, I much prefer the sound of the REGEN over that of the RUR.

 

Even though counterintuitive, I also tried both devices together. RUR upstream of the REGEN did not work. RUR after REGEN worked, and it sounded more musically lifelike than RUR alone, but still not as clear as REGEN alone. This combination also was somewhat unstable, resulting in occasional loss of connection to the server.

 

So right now the REGEN alone (with no 5V USB power feed) is my preferred device.

[holzmann]

Is there a count of the number of "USB cleaners" on the market right now and what they do and for how much?

 

(I'm going to purposely exclude the AQ Jitterbug from this list.)

 

UpTone Audio Regen ($175 USD) - Re-clocks

Wyred4Sound Recovery ($199 USD) - Isolates & Re-clocks

Intona USB Isolator ($229-$319 USD) - Isolates

Mutec MC-3+ USB ($1030 USD) - Isolates & Re-clocks (but appears to be overkill for most of us)

 

But I am going to add...

 

The Audiophilleo2 MKII USB>SPDIF converter for $579.

 

 

I will also note that each and every one of the aforementioned naturally only improves with the use of a linear PS as well as high-end USB cables. Adding a linear PS seems to be the answer to everything on this forum...

[audio.bill]

There's one correction I'd like to make regarding the W4S Recovery description above. It doesn't claim to provide isolation for the USB signal, the only isolation is to the 5V power being provided. That's the same as for the UpTone Audio Regen which also isolates the 5V power, so I believe they should both be described in consistent terms as being USB reclockers. Neither of them provides galvanic isolation of the USB signal which is what the Intona USB Isolator does.

[holzmann]

There's one correction I'd like to make regarding the W4S Recovery description above. It doesn't claim to provide isolation for the USB signal, the only isolation is to the 5V power being provided. That's the same as for the UpTone Audio Regen which also isolates the 5V power, so I believe they should both be described in consistent terms as being USB reclockers. Neither of them provides galvanic isolation of the USB signal which is what the Intona USB Isolator does.

 

Okay. Good to know. It won't let me edit my previous post.

[skatbelt]

In Germany, people rate the Acousence AFIS USB (artistic fidelity isolator switch) above the Mutec MC-3+ USB. In- and ouput can be chosen option wise. Price > 1500 USD.

[SciFiGuy]

Interesting read. As a new poster I like the summary idea for, prior to registering, I read through a plethora of posts which all kinda summarized the same things. To have one central thread I think is valuable for any new reader.

 

Still, what I would also like to see are some posts that highlight measured differences in these devices - noting before/after performance numbers - so as not to solely rely on personal opinions.

[Superdad]

Mutec MC-3+ USB ($1030 USD) - Isolates & Re-clocks (but appears to be overkill for most of us)

 

But I am going to add...

 

The Audiophilleo2 MKII USB>SPDIF converter for $579.

 

As well engineered as they are, neither of the above devices fits in the category of the topic of this thread. They are but two in a sea of USB>S/PDIF converters, and by definition they reclock--including becoming master clock for the DAC--because an S/PDIF signal embeds the clock in the line (which the receiver in the DAC has to then sync to and typically strip away and reclock again--all part of the weakness of S/PDIF AES/EBU interfaces which can be debated elsewhere).

 

Products in the category of the REGEN et al, should have a USB B input and a USB A output.

 

Owning, examining, and listening to most all of the devices in this category, I could discuss technical strengths and weaknesses of each design, but as the manufacturer of the leading one (recently past the 3,000 unit mark) it probably not be ethical of me to do so. I will say this: for those of you with a REGEN and a wandering/wondering eye/ear, you might want to sit tight for another month or so as John Swenson and I do have some significant surprises in the works (and they are far enough along for me to be comfortable hinting at them).

 

Have a great week all.

 

--Alex C.