ISO REGEN Listening Impressions (kicked off with some measurements)

[beautiful music]

Anyone have Hugo2 and trying to use ISOREGEN with it.

 

I'm curious to know how much the effects of ISOREGEN to Hugo2. 

[str-1]

18 hours ago, sadekkhalifa said:

Anyone have Hugo2 and trying to use ISOREGEN with it.

 

I'm curious to know how much the effects of ISOREGEN to Hugo2. 

I have both, and while the ISO Regen is being used in my main Chord DAVE-based system, I did try it with the Hugo2 to play music from my iPad, including using a USPCB between the Apple Camera adapter and the ISO Regen.  I can't remember the detail but I do remember feeling that the IR added an extra something positive to the sound.  I might try the H2/IR combination in my main system this evening.

[beautiful music]

42 minutes ago, str-1 said:

I have both, and while the ISO Regen is being used in my main Chord DAVE-based system, I did try it with the Hugo2 to play music from my iPad, including using a USPCB between the Apple Camera adapter and the ISO Regen.  I can't remember the detail but I do remember feeling that the IR added an extra something positive to the sound.  I might try the H2/IR combination in my main system this evening.

 

That is a great thing.

 

Looking forward to see your observations and may i know what is the type of the adapter you will use in order to connect IR to Hugo2 and from where you got it?

[str-1]

24 minutes ago, sadekkhalifa said:

 

That is a great thing.

 

Looking forward to see your observations and may i know what is the type of the adapter you will use in order to connect IR to Hugo2 and from where you got it?

The only usable cable I had was the cheap USB A to USB micro cable that came with the original Hugo I once owned.  It would be great if Uptone Audio could make a USPCB for connection to the Hugo/Mojo.  A few have already suggested they should do so.

[str-1]

21 hours ago, str-1 said:

The only usable cable I had was the cheap USB A to USB micro cable that came with the original Hugo I once owned.  It would be great if Uptone Audio could make a USPCB for connection to the Hugo/Mojo.  A few have already suggested they should do so.

OK, I had some time last night to have another listen to the ISO Regen linked up to the Hugo2.

 

I first put the Hugo2 into my main system, replacing the Chord DAVE.  I then tried the IR/H2 combination with just my iPad Pro.  In both cases, the IR was powered by an Uptone LPS-1.  I only had a cheap 1m usb cable to connect the IR to the H2 (the cable that came with the original Hugo I once owned).  With the iPad pro, I used a USPCB to connect the IR to the iPad's camera adapter.

 

The differences (for me, improvements) the ISO Regen introduced, while not night and day, were of the same type in both setups.  It simply put more meat on the bones, but without losing any definition.  It sounded more authoritative, more natural.  Striking piano keys and plucking guitar strings had a more weighty and defined punch.  The low-end was better controlled.  Vocals sounded more natural. 

 

If anyone is thinking of using the ISO Regen with both a microRendu and a Hugo2, I would say that since upgrading my microRendu board to v1.4 (which according to Sonore includes an updated regeneration circuit) the improvements introduced by the IR are slightly reduced compared to its use with the mR 1.3 board.  But for me, there is still a very clear improvement with the IR in the chain.  I suspect the improvements will be that much greater when connecting the IR directly to a computer.

[rickca]

28 minutes ago, str-1 said:

since upgrading my microRendu board to v1.4 (which according to Sonore includes an updated regeneration circuit)

I think you are mistaken about this.  The only change in the 1.4 hardware update is the clock (the same clock used in the ultraRendu).  You get a new 1.4 black PCB but the circuit design is unchanged from the original.

[rickca]

9 minutes ago, str-1 said:

I would say that since upgrading my microRendu board to v1.4  the improvements introduced by the IR are slightly reduced compared to its use with the mR 1.3 board.  But for me, there is still a very clear improvement with the IR in the chain.

This has been my experience as well with an iFi micro iDSD rather than a Hugo 2.  I used a USPCB between the microRendu 1.4 and ISO REGEN.

[str-1]

4 hours ago, rickca said:

I think you are mistaken about this.  The only change in the 1.4 hardware update is the clock (the same clock used in the ultraRendu).  You get a new 1.4 black PCB but the circuit design is unchanged from the original.

Here's a quote from the Sonore website:

"The update changes the oscillator utilized for the CPU and the USB regenerative circuit while the remaining circuit design remains unchanged."

[agladstone]

On 8/18/2017 at 11:23 AM, Quasar said:

Hello agladstone.

I would like to ask you a question please.
¿Have you tried to exchange position of the ISORegen with respect to ifi Micro USB3.0 , to check with which one of them you get better results when you connect one to the other of the input of the DAC? I mean the placement order.

 

Thank you.

@Quasar oh yes!! I have been constantly experimenting with a lot of different arrangements with the "chain" with the ISO Regen, the IFI iMicro, the LPS-1 and with 1 USPCB, 2 USPCB, and no USPCB in the chain too! 

First, I'm definitely convinced that I need to buy a 2nd LPS-1!! (1 for ISO-Regen and 1 for Micro iUSB 3.0)! So once I discovered the LPS-1 works very well with the Micro iUSB, I've been experimenting a lot also with having the LPS-1 power either one or the other and having either the ISO or the Micro last in the chain (and with or without the LPS-1 for both and for both of the as either first or last). 

So, I'm certain that if both were powered by their own LPS-1 that it would improve things to another level entirely regardless of which was first or last in the chain! 

I'm at this point assuming (any opinions

on this theory would be welcomed!!) that whichever one I use as last (closet to DAC) in the chain is the one that should be

powered by the LPS-1? Does this sound like a logical conclusion? 

Second, I think that the IFI Micro last in chain sounds slightly better than the ISO Regen last (but these differences in sound quality between which is last and which is first are subtle to me and to be honest, im just making changes and swapping the order of them in the chain and connections (USB cable or USPCB)

and also swapping around which is powered by the LPS-1 every couple of days and then listening to my music as "usual", so I probably need to really sit down for a few hours and do a more scientific "A", "B", "C", "D" type of comparison!

 

I would say at this point I believe (but not 100% certain) that:

 

A. Both divices powered by their own LPS-1 will be best regardless of positioning 

B. I believe that the IFI Micro last in chain (closest to DAC) has the slight "edge"

C. Using both the ISO Regen AND the IFI Micro iUSB 3.0 together as a chain is definitely better than using either one of them alone (this I'm 100% convinced of!)

D. I'm very undecided about the USPCB's VS Cardas split Highspeed 2.0 USB cables! 

I have tried every combo with these now (USPCB out of Aurender into ISO and/or IFI, 2nd USPCB into the next device and than Cardas USB into DAC, also the exact opposite (Cardas out of Aurender into ISO or IFI, then USPCB -> next device -> USPCB into DAC). 

Also using all Cardas USB cables and no USPCB's and also USPCB's out of aurender and into DAC with a Cardas USB cable

inbetween the devices!! It's very difficult for me to decide which of these combinations is better than the others !!!

I will say that each of these different combinations does actually alter the sound each time, but which one of these is best?? That's so far been very challenging for me to determine!! (Logically I would assume at least 1

USPCB going directly into DAC should be the best, but I'm not so sure that's actually the case! 

Im starting to think that at least 1 USPCB directly out of the aurender (music player) may be better than a USB cable out?? 

[Quasar]

55 minutes ago, agladstone said:

@Quasar oh yes!! I have been constantly experimenting with a lot of different arrangements with the "chain" with the ISO Regen, the IFI iMicro, the LPS-1 and with 1 USPCB, 2 USPCB, and no USPCB in the chain too! 

First, I'm definitely convinced that I need to buy a 2nd LPS-1!! (1 for ISO-Regen and 1 for Micro iUSB 3.0)! So once I discovered the LPS-1 works very well with the Micro iUSB, I've been experimenting a lot also with having the LPS-1 power either one or the other and having either the ISO or the Micro last in the chain (and with or without the LPS-1 for both and for both of the as either first or last). 

So, I'm certain that if both were powered by their own LPS-1 that it would improve things to another level entirely regardless of which was first or last in the chain! 

I'm at this point assuming (any opinions

on this theory would be welcomed!!) that whichever one I use as last (closet to DAC) in the chain is the one that should be

powered by the LPS-1? Does this sound like a logical conclusion? 

Second, I think that the IFI Micro last in chain sounds slightly better than the ISO Regen last (but these differences in sound quality between which is last and which is first are subtle to me and to be honest, im just making changes and swapping the order of them in the chain and connections (USB cable or USPCB)

and also swapping around which is powered by the LPS-1 every couple of days and then listening to my music as "usual", so I probably need to really sit down for a few hours and do a more scientific "A", "B", "C", "D" type of comparison!

 

I would say at this point I believe (but not 100% certain) that:

 

A. Both divices powered by their own LPS-1 will be best regardless of positioning 

B. I believe that the IFI Micro last in chain (closest to DAC) has the slight "edge"

C. Using both the ISO Regen AND the IFI Micro iUSB 3.0 together as a chain is definitely better than using either one of them alone (this I'm 100% convinced of!)

D. I'm very undecided about the USPCB's VS Cardas split Highspeed 2.0 USB cables! 

I have tried every combo with these now (USPCB out of Aurender into ISO and/or IFI, 2nd USPCB into the next device and than Cardas USB into DAC, also the exact opposite (Cardas out of Aurender into ISO or IFI, then USPCB -> next device -> USPCB into DAC). 

Also using all Cardas USB cables and no USPCB's and also USPCB's out of aurender and into DAC with a Cardas USB cable

inbetween the devices!! It's very difficult for me to decide which of these combinations is better than the others !!!

I will say that each of these different combinations does actually alter the sound each time, but which one of these is best?? That's so far been very challenging for me to determine!! (Logically I would assume at least 1

USPCB going directly into DAC should be the best, but I'm not so sure that's actually the case! 

Im starting to think that at least 1 USPCB directly out of the aurender (music player) may be better than a USB cable out?? 

 

Thank you very much agladstone for your extensive response. I'll read it more slowly. My English is not very good.

I did not imagine a few months ago, that I would be doing this type of tests on digital links. Because I did not expect the one who could get so much gain in audio quality. The USB input of the NAD M51, which I have is not the best of its inputs, and has improved drastically with various elements only in the digital field.

I was asking you, to give me an idea of which of the two components can have a better USB signal regardless of galvanic isolation. I guess the best quality should connect right at the entrance of the DAC.

I have a Nano iUSB 3.0 and a USB extensions Startech, iDefender etc and I have also been doing many tests as you comment and I just made an order for an IsoRegen, which although I am very happy with it Nano, I think the IsoRegen should offer A better signal quality. The iFi Micro you have is better than the Nano, so I asked about your appreciations.
As well as you, I have noticed that the positive effect of some elements and combinations are cumulative.

I have also recently obtained two USPCBs and am very happy with them and I have removed all USB cabling from the system. I only have one ethernet cable

 

A greeting.

 

[agladstone]

@Quasar you will like the ISO Regen! 

I would suggest trying it alone and then also trying it with the Nano after it and see which sounds better. The Nano may not add anything extra or more to the ISO Regen alone (as the Micro does), because the Micro is better than the Nano but the Nano may not be better than the ISO Regen just alone, but it's worth a try! 

[Quasar]

Yes I hope so. I am quite convinced of it and that will also make good conbinación with the Nano. I've noticed improvements by placing devices before and after Startech extensors, so I know where to put them.

I will already comment on results when I arrive and while I take the opportunity to make other modifications so that the wait is shorter. I also use SU-1, better than the DAC's XMOS.

 

 

Greetings.

[Superdad]

7 minutes ago, Cyrus said:

@Superdad

Do you recommend daisy chaining the Regen and ISO Regen? Thanks.

 

Not particularly.  In fact, during design of the ISO REGEN we experimented with putting another hub chip and clock ahead of the Silanna isolator chip but it really did not help.

We preferred to put the $$ into all the ultra-ultra-low-noise regulators and into the fabulous Crystek CCHD-575 on the downstream side where it counts (did a blind test of 2 proto-boards where the only variable was the clock--one was the CCHD-3391 as used in the USB REGEN, the other the 575; Took 20 seconds to settle that one! )

 

But if you have a USB REGEN you certainly can put it BEFORE the ISO REGEN>DAC connection.  

[PeteGardner]

OK, I hope I don't make this too long-winded!

 

I have had my IR/USCPB/LPS-1 combo in place for a couple of weeks (thanks for recommending John at Sublime Hifi Superdad!)

 

My rig is - HD flac>Auralic Aries>Curious USB>IR with LPS-1>USCPB>Chord Hugo TT>AKT5p

 

My first problem was the tight fit of the USCPB into the HD input of the TT. The input actually broke away and I will need to have this repaired. Never mind, I changed it to the SD input with a lot more care. So I am up and running!!!

 

SQ improvement was stunning from the outset. My succinct, amateur conclusion later. (I am yet to do an A/B comparison as I will wait until the HD input is repaired)

 

However, I have not got to the bottom of this yet, but the TT randomly switches from SD to HD so I lose the signal. This may be every 2-3 minutes and can also be an hr or more. This leads to my first question...

 

A) Does anyone have an answer for why this is happening? The IR? The fact that it is the SD input with the way I am set up? Something else? I am hoping it will 'fix' once I go to the HD input. Please note that I also have issues with the TT remote when changing volume (others have similar probs with no fix from Chord) in that it will sometimes change the input rather than the volume (my 'fix' is pointing the remote 45 degrees to the right of the TT)

 

My second question regards the SQ difference of the inputs...

 

B) What % SQ improvement (approx) would I expect to get once I change to the HD input of the TT? The SD is 16/48 and the HD is 32/384. My music is flac (& Spotify)

 

OK, no more questions! Time for my thoughts on the IR/LPS-1 effect on my listening experience.

I have been an amateur, avid music lover for about 40yrs, both recorded and live music. 

When I was listening to my rig last night, I thought to myself, how can I easily describe the experience of what I was hearing.

One word came to mind, so I googled the definition and the definition was perfect. It included another word that was also perfect for what I was experiencing. So here is my succinct conclusion (with definitions)

 

DISTINGUISHED - very successful, authoritative, and commanding great respect.

AUTHORITATIVE - able to be trusted as being accurate or true

 

I am one happy camper! (so far)

 

 

 

 

[Superdad]

55 minutes ago, Gilles said:

"But if you have a USB REGEN you certainly can put it BEFORE the ISO REGEN>DAC connection."

 

@Superdad:

Isn't was you propose daisy-chaining?

If not, can you please tell me the difference between daisy-chaining and your proposal?

Sorry if this should be obvious, but it is not to me.

Thanks,

 

Sorry, not sure what you mean.  I am not proposing anything.  Someone asked if they thought it worthwhile to feed an ISO REGEN from the output of a USB REGEN.  It works, it is fine to do so, and I make no claims of benefit.  To the extent that improved USB signal integrity (from the output of the first, USB REGEN) helps the PHY of the input of the second (ISO REGEN), then some difference may be a heard.

 

The truth is that most folks here have more time and patience to try all these permutations out--combinations with our products and others--than I ever will.  When my shipment of clones arrives (one to do the work I put off, one to have fun with the family, and one to listen to music and go through my long list of audio experiments), that's when I'll feel comfortable making comments about REGEN daisy-chaining.  I have a strict ethic of never rendering an opinion on actual sound (as oppose to theoretical ideals) unless I have heard something with my own ears in my own system.  

[Barry in Calgary]

Hi Alex

 

I just received my replacement ISO Regen this afternoon and replaced my Amber Regen.  Glad to say at this time there are NO ticks (so far, knock wood).

 

Now this next part may seem odd, but as my current setup is

 

Curious USB > Intona >SBooster VBUS2 isolator > Nordost USB cable > amber Regen > Curious USB > DAC

 

I decided to make the minimum possible change to help me determine what was affecting my perceived sound quality.

So I just removed the VBUS2 isolator (to allow power to the ISO Regen) and replaced the amber Regen with the ISO regen.

 

I know I've got two isolation devices in series followed by an audiophile hub, but I just wanted to do this in a simple step by step fashion.  My impressions after about an hour of listening are very favourable.  I do believe the ISO Regen is a noticeable improvement over the amber regen in series with the Intona.  I want to spend a few days listening to this configuration before I remove the Intona.

 

Regards

Barry

 

 

 

 

[Fernando Maldonado]

Quick first impression:

 

I received my ISO-Regen yesterday. I inserted it into my system (laptop --> iFi Audio iSilencer 3.0 -->ISO Regen --> Oppo 205 DAC) and started listening. I instantly noticed a big improvement. No issues with pops, clicks or dropouts. I will remove the iFi Silencer and listen to the ISO Regen only at a later time.

 

Did I say it really made a big improvement? Overall, I am very pleased - highly recommended. Note I am not using the Ultra Cap LPS-1, might get one later.

 

Regards,

Fernando

[Jabess]

In case anyone was wondering, I was able to figure out the issue. Apparently the IR did not like the 5v usb line taped on my wireworld usb cable upstream. The regular regen still operated with it taped.

[JohnSwenson]

5 hours ago, Jabess said:

In case anyone was wondering, I was able to figure out the issue. Apparently the IR did not like the 5v usb line taped on my wireworld usb cable upstream. The regular regen still operated with it taped.

Aha,

the USB REGEN ignores the VBUS, but the ISO REGEN uses VBUS to power the upstream side of the isolator chip. The upshot is that the cable plugged into the upstream port (B type) of the ISO REGEN must have VBUS supplied.

 

John S.

[Superdad]

32 minutes ago, JohnSwenson said:

Aha,

the USB REGEN ignores the VBUS, but the ISO REGEN uses VBUS to power the upstream side of the isolator chip. The upshot is that the cable plugged into the upstream port (B type) of the ISO REGEN must have VBUS supplied.

 

Yup.  In bold on the second page of the User Guide and underlined on the ISO REGEN product web page.

[asdf1000]

1 hour ago, JohnSwenson said:

Aha,

the USB REGEN ignores the VBUS, but the ISO REGEN uses VBUS to power the upstream side of the isolator chip. The upshot is that the cable plugged into the upstream port (B type) of the ISO REGEN must have VBUS supplied.

 

John S.

 

Hi John,

 

Does the Iso Regen work with the Corning USB 3.0 Optical on it's upstream side?

 

I cant find clear info about if the Corning supplies VBUS power. 

[Superdad]

41 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

Does the Iso Regen work with the Corning USB 3.0 Optical on it's upstream side?

 

I cant find clear info about if the Corning supplies VBUS power. 

 

While I can't imagine the Corning providing sonic benefit upstream of the ISO REGEN (John has one and we listened to it together long ago--during original USB REGEN development), it does function nicely as a way to run USB a very long ways. 

 

The Corning has a pair of copper wires running next to the optical fibre--to power its far end transceiver.  It also will provide a very small amount of 5VBUS current to a device.  The ISO REGEN draws just 40mA (0.04 amps) from the USB VBUS to power the upstream side of the Silanna isolator chip (though we use an ultra-ultra-low-noise LT3042 to turn that 5V into 3.3V for the chip instead of using the Silanna's built-in 5V>3.3V regulator).

 

So yes, while we can guaranteed it (unless John digs out his Corning and tries it), I think the Corning Optical USB cable will work fine with an ISO REGEN.

[Superdad]

11 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

I know it's been mentioned before that a lot of the development time for the ISO REGEN was spent on taming the isolator chip.

 

Was the end result (your own measurements in the lab) that switching isolation ON does zero harm, vs switching isolation off? I.e. were the downsides of the isolator chip completely tamed in the lab?

 

I know you also mentioned that there isn't gear out there that can detect the differences in jitter we're talking about here and that you want to make your own test gear - so I may have answered my own question here.

 

I am going to answer in John's stead. 

 

First off, switching off the isolation using the switch on the ISO REGEN does not bypass the Silanna chip.  It simply defeats the ground isolation by jumping the ground planes across the moat.  The chip remains on and functioning.

 

Secondly, that beautiful, near perfect eye-pattern that we published in the first post of this thread?  That was with the galvanic isolation (and it was not even with a USPCB as the output "cable" from the ISO REGEN.

 

Thirdly, and most to the point: During development I was very concerned that we not mess up the sound quality by using the Silanna chip. We already had (in April 2016!) über-REGEN boards (basically all the great things that are significant upgrades over the USB REGEN--the LT3042 regs, the beefed up power networks, the selected USB3.1 hub chip, the Crystek 575 clock).  And I have boards with all that plus the spot and circuits for the Silanna.  So I have boards that are identical except with and without the Silanna (wires going straight across for the data lines where the chip would be.

So regardless of John's testing (again a lot of what we hear is still hard to measure: the clock? the hub chip choice; bypass caps on the hub chip--stuff that makes the naysayers go crazy but all of which go into making a product that everyone says WOW about), I can assure you that I spent a bunch of time comparing über-REGEN with ISO REGEN--as in identical boards but with isolator chip not installed on one.  I promise you, the chip is doing no harm sonically.  And when you engage the isolation it is a great plus.

 

Hope the above addresses your inquiry sufficiently.  

Cheers,

--Alex C.

[asdf1000]

1 minute ago, Superdad said:

I promise you, the chip is doing no harm sonically.  And when you engage the isolation it is a great plus.

Hope the above addresses your inquiry sufficiently.  

Cheers,

--Alex C.

 

Hehe fantastic. Thanks Alex.

 

[asdf1000]

53 minutes ago, Superdad said:

Hope the above addresses your inquiry sufficiently.  

 

Oh one more question if you don't mind.

 

What was the drama with the Silenna chip - output jitter which affected the output signal integrity?

 

Is that where adding the low phase noise Crystek clock solved the issue? Or was the Crystek clock already there for the uBer Regen planned last year?