Amir at ASR claims Uptone won't sell the ISO regen to him...

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Anything carrying the official USB logo is required to conform to the standard specification.

 

Yes, but that's the other way around.

I see few audio cables with USB logo tags. So I guess they must all be off-spec.

And you know what ? they are. They have to be, because the one we carry is so much on all specs possible that it sounds unequivocally the best of them all. I am even serious. But ours too, no USB logo on it. Only our own. 

 

So yes I *am* serious (those owning it will know). Still if someone asks me "prove it" then there's nothing much to prove except maybe my hours justification table of the work on it.

I didn't even listen really to it. It just had to be the better one.

Blurp.

[jabbr]

30 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Zero.

 

How many DACs report their phase error at any other distance ?

Also zero.

 

And otherwise ... link ?

That's because if I gave you the ability to measure your phase error in real time as you made software and other tweaks ... then you'd never get anything else done ... ever  

 

[mansr]

Just now, PeterSt said:

Yes, but that's the other way around.

I see few audio cables with USB logo tags. So I guess they must all be off-spec.

Absence of the logo doesn't necessarily mean it isn't compliant, only that nobody has had it formally certified.

Just now, PeterSt said:

And you know what ? they are. They have to be, because the one we carry is so much on all specs possible that it sounds unequivocally the best of them all. I am even serious. But ours too, no USB logo on it. Only our own.

I'm not sure what you're trying say there.

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

If your DAC had better isolation, the cable wouldn't make a difference

 

Sadly, the more isolation the better the resolvement of everything, the more is audible and the more a USB cable matters.

The NOS1 sold for 3-4 years with the stock $1 cable which by far was used by most (against what they already had). This stopped for the first time with the "a" version, which is the isolated one. This is also the one which "net" went from that 214 or whatever (I showed yesterday) ps p-p jitter to under 1ps. Funny eh ?

 

Hey, I use 3 cascaded isolators and the sound is crazy. But it is too difficult to make error-free (for commercializing it). With saying this, all I challenge for is that you guys tell me that the isolation is only so-so.

AND THIS IS TRUE.

There. 

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

I'm not sure what you're trying say there.

 

It rally does not matter.

What does matter is my underlying message that for audio to work, the "spec" can be interpreted way broad. One comes with solutions like the difference between the Regen-green and -amber. So might you recall what the difference is, one of them now has to be way off spec, right ?

And that is the point. If you deliberately go way off spec, audio will still work but sound different. SADLY.

So I say it again : the way we work with the USB audio is that the USB errors are continuously measured and should be zero (ask Alex about that once again and his nightmares may take over). Thus, zero errors anywhere with all of my attempts. But the sound changes like a physical equalizer being in the chain. It is one big pile of "electrical responses" and this is also how each of such devices will change the sound. But will it be better as in more accurate ?

 

I wish I knew.

Anyway I am as far as being able to change the sound at will (I am in control so to speak) so yes, now it is time for some measurements. Including a protocol analyzer, just to be sure. And from there Walhalla should pop up.

 

Time for some music and a beer here.

[plissken]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I am not selling the ISO Regen.  I did, however, participate in a blind test of two candidate designs,

 

You might as well blind audition two minidsp with different x-over slopes and topologies for that matter..

[Jud]

25 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

You might as well blind audition two minidsp with different x-over slopes and topologies for that matter..

 

Crossover slopes weren't being tested.  Circuit components were. Would you like to know which of two pieces of equipment performing the same function but  built with different parts sounded better (or if there was no difference)?

[jabbr]

30 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Hey, I use 3 cascaded isolators and the sound is crazy. But it is too difficult to make error-free (for commercializing it). With saying this, all I challenge for is that you guys tell me that the isolation is only so-so.

AND THIS IS TRUE.

I think I have an idea why. It is, I think, a limitation from using most if not all of the USB to I2S interfaces -- you don't need I2S anyways. But this complicates everything. My idea is to start at the DAC and work backwards -- anyways an idea that I'm devoting a whole bunch of time on -- and yes I won't claim it's "better" there would be measurements. You are, at least and rare among manufacturers, interested in and working on these issues IIRC you were the first to point out the Intona device to everyone. Your NOS1a does sound fantastic so the very hard work shows but everything , perhaps, can be improved on -- well until we have proper measurements who knows  

[firedog]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Anything carrying the official USB logo is required to conform to the standard specification.

And I guess in some alternate universe that actually happens.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, firedog said:

And I guess in some alternate universe that actually happens.

Sure, there are "fakes" that don't actually meet the spec. That's a problem. The point is that by using the official logo, you are stating that the device/cable conforms to the spec. Whether or not that is true is a different matter.

[mmerrill99]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Sure, there are "fakes" that don't actually meet the spec. That's a problem. The point is that by using the official logo, you are stating that the device/cable conforms to the spec. Whether or not that is true is a different matter.

And the spec is a guarantee that there are no bit errors (or very, very negligible bit errors - nothing is absolute)

 

Bit errors are not & never were in question in these USB audio device improvements

 

Time to stop confounding the issues!

[Elberoth]

On 3.06.2017 at 1:47 AM, james45974 said:

Having run accross Amir's postings on various sites, could it be that he is simply a clueless dick?

Full dislosure:  i don't own any uptone audio products, currently streaming from a Raspberry Pi

 

I wouldn't call him a dick. But he certainly is clueless at what he is doing. 

 

I also like to measure stuff myself - but I'm far from proclaiming that device under test doesn't work, simply 'cos I'm not able to measure the differencies. He is even worse that that, as he insists on simple jitter J-test as his absolute, mother of all tests that sould tell you everything. 

 

I'm pretty sure that if you told that to any real engineer, he would laught at that concept all day long. 

 

I have asked him several times to measure digital cable or a power cord dfifferencies with his J-test (since he likes to measure stuff so much), but guess what - he ignored my questions multiple times.

[Sal1950]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I am not selling the ISO Regen.  I did, however, participate in a blind test of two candidate designs, where I very quickly selected the one most like the current production model because of what I felt were clearly audible differences.  The other blind test participant did the same.

 

Of course with regard to minimum phase and intermediate phase filters, there's no "secretly added" reverb.  Rather there is the potential for reverb if post-ringing has that audible effect, something various people have said is so, but that hasn't at least to my knowledge been established in the scientific literature one way or the other.

I've heard you refer to various successful blind tests involving the Reg but never found any actual details, sorry if I missed them. Would you be so kind to point me to their posting or supply some further info here.

Exactly how was this test conducted? Who were the participants?  What were the various components involved, source, DAC, etc? What source material was used? How many rounds of tests were made?  What were the specific "blind" conditions. What were the final voting numbers.

TIA

[jabbr]

3 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

How many rounds of tests were made?  What were the specific "blind" conditions. What were the final voting numbers.

It was @Jud with a bottle of bourbon -- how many rounds did he drink? We hope he didn't go blind  

 

From a technical POV, we call this an out of focus group

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, Sal1950 said:

Exactly how was this test conducted? Who were the participants?  What were the various components involved, source, DAC, etc? What source material was used? How many rounds of tests were made?  What were the specific "blind" conditions. What were the final voting numbers.

 

I am not Jud. But I will provide the answers on behalf of him.

 

Only me.

My reference.

My DAC which I know very well.

My reference material.

5 minutes was sufficient.

I didn't know what was in the box - regular Regen or ISO.

I voted 1.

 

So there you have it. Now you can blame me for the answers you were waiting for.

[PeterSt]

IOW stop the BS just for BSing.

[christopher3393]

9 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

I've heard you refer to various successful blind tests involving the Reg but never found any actual details, sorry if I missed them. Would you be so kind to point me to their posting or supply some further info here.

Exactly how was this test conducted? Who were the participants?  What were the various components involved, source, DAC, etc? What source material was used? How many rounds of tests were made?  What were the specific "blind" conditions. What were the final voting numbers.

TIA

 

 

[PeterSt]

10 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

And the spec is a guarantee that there are no bit errors (or very, very negligible bit errors - nothing is absolute)

 

Bit errors are not & never were in question in these USB audio device improvements

 

You speak more truth than you may realize.

No USB spec has been made for audio. This means that no device we use for USB/audio has to be bit-error-free as you call it. And for that reason it isn't. This is what I ran into regarding this particular isolation, and this is what Alex et al also ran into. I know, it is pathetic but we both have been educating a chip manufacturer.

Believe it or not.

 

Or blame Gordon R. Ha !

Kidding of course, but ...

[mmerrill99]

Are you saying that USB audio has bit errors?

[Ralf11]

17 hours ago, Jud said:

 

If by "adding" you mean "posted prominently on the product page ever since the page first appeared," then you are correct.

 

No.  I looked for it and did not find it.  Neither did another person.

 

What makes you think the above, and do you have any connection with the business or principals?

 

They still do not have the guarantee on any other product pages (as of last night).

 

I have no axe to grind in this fight and do not use a USB connection.

[Jud]

16 minutes ago, Sal1950 said:

I've heard you refer to various successful blind tests involving the Reg but never found any actual details, sorry if I missed them. Would you be so kind to point me to their posting or supply some further info here.

Exactly how was this test conducted? Who were the participants?  What were the various components involved, source, DAC, etc? What source material was used? How many rounds of tests were made?  What were the specific "blind" conditions. What were the final voting numbers.

TIA

 

Alex sent me and @lmitche each two identical looking ISO Regens, asking us simply to listen and separately let him know what we thought.  The only difference between the two was a strip of blue painter's tape on the top of each, where in black magic marker the letter "G" was written on top of one, and the letter "M" was written on top of the other.

 

I plugged each ISO Regen into my system in place of the original Regen.  I only had to listen to each once to know that I very much preferred "G."  The whole thing took maybe five minutes because the difference was so apparent.  (I liked both G and M better than the original, but of course that comparison was non-blinded.)

 

Afterward I learned @lmitche's experience was pretty much a carbon copy of mine.

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

No USB spec has been made for audio.

All USB devices share the same electrical spec. There is no special version for audio just like there is no special version for storage or networking devices. The document titled "USB Device Class Definition for Audio Devices" details a protocol for use with audio devices. What exactly do you suggest is missing?

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Are you saying that USB audio has bit errors?

In my testing, I had to try pretty hard to provoke bit errors over USB. When they did occur, it was blatantly obvious.

[R1200CL]

23 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

No USB spec has been made for audio

 

I think you may be a bit wrong there. I did a Google search...

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

In my testing, I had to try pretty hard to provoke bit errors over USB. When they did occur, it was blatantly obvious.

 

Yes, I don't think anyone is talking about "flipping bits" or actual dropouts as events that wouldn't be pretty obvious.