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

[PeterSt]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Could be fun !

 

Of course I realize that this thread emerged because of some other way around :

Someone taking "measurements" of a kind which does not exist to next come up with results which are flawed as h*ll but put forward with charismatical blur that could be harmful. 

[jabbr]

19 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Does anyone actually have a clue about what measurements he is waiting for ?

I most certainly can't think of any, unless such a device is going to make all significantly worse.

 

An eye diagram is one but I don't really call that measurement as such.

So name us some type of measurement which is going to show something (doesn't need to be significant - marginal is OK too) and which someone like me won't debunk beforehand.

Could be fun !

 

Linewidth.

 

Feed perfect sine wave (e.g. 1kHz) encoded as 24/704 (or whatever) in, and perform high resolution spectrum analysis. A perfect DAC should emit *only* 1 kHz but phase error will result in a spread of frequencies around the center. The spectrum should have frequency intervals < 0.1 Hz ideally. 

 

A device which reduces clock phase error will cause narrowing of the peak (linewidth).

[PeterSt]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

Linewidth.

 

That won't do it. For that I first need to be able to see *any* spur of jitter,

And no, my plots are not similar to Denis's. 

 

So what I don't see can not be improved upon. However, the example of the other way around I can now make clear to you : should it be significantly worse then I might be able to see it.

[jabbr]

4 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

That won't do it. For that I first need to be able to see *any* spur of jitter,

And no, my plots are not similar to Denis's. 

 

So what I don't see can not be improved upon. However, the example of the other way around I can now make clear to you : should it be significantly worse then I might be able to see it.

If you increase your resolution you will see the spread... I suggested that the HP 3561A has an interval of 640 microHz between 125 microHz and 100 kHz ... now perhaps you are doing really well, and then harder to improve -- try vibration isolation  but seriously, this is a test of clock phase error. What frequency intervals are you measuring? They need to be small..

 

That device is no longer state of art, but affordable on used market... otherwise it gets ridiculous

[PeterSt]

 

 

Mind you, this is even 16/44.1. So see ? nothing to see. And of course this is one plot only from a topic of where I knew I put a plot. But I tried forever ...

 

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

Mind you, this is even 16/44.1. So see ? nothing to see. And of course this is one plot only from a topic of where I knew I put a plot. But I tried forever ...

 

 

I understand ... I want to see 1000 Hz +/- 10 Hz ... in increments < 0.1 Hz ... there's always a curve -- its physics...

[PeterSt]

This one has potential. But dangerous because of the low output (-120dBFS)

 

I have better examples I think ...

[jabbr]

Ok but ...

a) not everything is phase error -- there are other causes of distortion, even other types of "jitter"

b) we don't know that Regen helps phase error at DAC clock, perhaps it works some other way

c) does it help you? perhaps that's because you have a low phase error clock and good isolation...

d) if everyone published these measurements, we would be able to better compare.

[PeterSt]

Actually you'd need 24 bits to see deeper. This is one :

 

 

This is still not what you're asking for. So last chance coming up soon ...

 

[tmtomh]

14 hours ago, mansr said:

I'm quite certain that removing, say, a 5 dB hump at 100 Hz is better than not doing this.

 

14 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Better than not doing it if you factor in potentially adding euphonic reverb in the mid and upper frequencies?

 

You said the difference in bass was "clearly audible" to you.  Did you test this blind so as to remove any expectation bias, or even better, research the academic literature to confirm scientifically the favorable effects you thought were clearly audible?

 

Jud, I've read enough of your posts to know that you are thoughtful, open-minded, and civil, and I have quite a lot of respect for what you write.

That said, I feel you're engaging in a misleading, and frankly somewhat dangerous, line of argument here, and I confess it's a little frustrating to read. Using EQ/DSP to attenuate resonant frequencies is a process with a clear cause and a clear effect. Mansr isn't saying that taming a bass resonance makes music sound better in every respect. He's saying it makes it sound better to him (a subjective evaluation), because it reduces or eliminates a resonance which is easily measurable both before and after (an objective piece of data).

 

The linkage he is positing between EQ/DSP on the one hand, and a change in the sound on the other, is settled fact in audio. How audible the particular resonance in his room is, is of course subjective - and how bothersome it is, is of course even more subjective. But the mechanism by which he is measuring a frequency hump, then cutting that frequency's energy via EQ/DSP, and then re-measuring - that mechanism is well understood and has a mountain of data to support our understanding of it - and you know it. The question of whether or not filter ringing of mansr's DSP might also be impacting the sound is of course a real and valid question in general. But it's completely irrelevant here because no one - including you - is suggesting that filter ringing contributes to mansr's perception that the bass hump has been reduced. Everyone - including you - would agree that this perception is created by the DSP attenuation of that bass frequency. (And when he wrote of "correct response," it was clear to me - and I would suggest clear to everyone including you - that he was talking about frequency response.)

 

I mention all this because - again, as you yourself have said repeatedly in this thread - the mechanism by which the ISO regen would produce the vaguely defined "better sound" you describe, is unknown. There are, at best, a couple of potentially plausible explanations that have been put forward. But it appears there are not yet sufficient tests (and maybe not even adequate testing protocols or equipment) to evaluate these explanations. And as potentially plausible explanations with no protocols to test them, they are a long, long way from likely or probable, let alone from certain/near-certain as is the explanation for why mansr measures and hears less bass resonance after he attenuates the frequency in question with his DSP.

 

And this is what I meant by "dangerous" above: It seems to me that here at CA, and across much of the internet, folks too often try to make analogies between the possible and the probable or the plausible and the likely. And then anyone who points out the misleading nature of these false equivalences gets accused of being "close-minded." Not saying you are making that particular charge here, but I think your argument to mansr here muddies the waters and detracts from, rather than adds to, our understanding.

[PeterSt]

Something like this ?

(this is 24 bits)

 

 

and

 

 

This is both from the same situation. The 2nd one has more FFT depth (resolution). So here you see something happening.

Now my message is : nothing in this isolation realm is going to improve this. Power supply etc. might.

 

If you have ideas what to do, don't hesitate.

 

PS: Don't look at the 50Hz (mains) here. This was not right yet in that setup (december 2016, B'ASS testing)

 

[PeterSt]

36 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

but I think your argument to mansr here muddies the waters and detracts from, rather than adds to, our understanding.

 

Maybe this depends on who reads it ?

I am Dutch and I read it right away as giving mansr a taste of his own medicine. Jud was kidding there ... Nothing to be serious about.

 

Edit : tbh what's also possible is that Jud has zero experience with using DSP for room treatment.

[firedog]

12 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

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.

https://uptoneaudio.com/products/iso-regen

 

It's right there in boldface. 

Maybe you are looking at an older version of the page in your browser cache?

[firedog]

11 hours ago, Sal1950 said:

Well there ya go.  You should present that as a paper to the AES.  LOL

Jud did exactly the reasonable thing an audiophile should do at home. Blind test comparison to see what sounds better. He had no financial or other incentive at the time to prejudice his results. For someone who constantly flogs here about ofjectivism, your reaction is uncalled for wise-assness.

 

Doubtful anyone, including you, has the ability to do scientifically correct double blind testing at home. Even a perfectly done test just on yourself or a few individuals wouldn't count as scientifically valid, as the test group would be small. 

[Don Hills]

1 minute ago, firedog said:

Jud did exactly the reasonable thing an audiophile should do at home. Blind test comparison to see what sounds better. ...

 

It wasn't a blind test. He knew which of the devices was in circuit at any one time.

[PeterSt]

5 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

It wasn't a blind test. He knew which of the devices was in circuit at any one time.

 

Huh ?

[PeterSt]

13 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

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

 

That is because they don't have the feature on other products.

Now sue them.

[firedog]

3 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

A difference found in a double-blind test does not prove an actual improvement. It proves that there is a difference between A and B samples, but which one is better is based on the listener and their preferences and therefore is not objective.  

 

Consider the online survey where the majority of 150 listeners preferred a flawed MP3 lossy compression over the non-lossy original in a blind test using their own equipment. Over 55% of folks with high-end, expensive equipment preferred the sound of the less accurate recording and only 29% preferred the lossless version. Does that mean that MP3 is better?

Today many people are used to listening to mp3 and extremely volume compressed recordings. Quite possible their standard of reference for how things "should" sound is actually something with worse SQ. When they hear a proper sounding recording they think something is missing. Having a high-end system  doesn't take this factor away. 

 

[firedog]

26 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

It wasn't a blind test. He knew which of the devices was in circuit at any one time.

No, according to him it was a blind test

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, firedog said:

No, according to him it was a blind test

He said it was marked G and M or something like that.  While true he didn't know what those markings meant, it wasn't really even single blind.  I have seen this too many times.  Even the color of a cable as long as you can see it cause people to latch onto perceived differences and place them on one vs the other.  Then you simply can't get those out of your head.  No human can. 

 

From what I have seen of other people and myself, you could so mark two completely identical boxes and pretty much cannot prevent yourself from hearing a difference.  Most particularly when you are auditioning to see if they sound different.

[firedog]

Just now, esldude said:

He said it was marked G and M or something like that.  While true he didn't know what those markings meant, it wasn't really even single blind.  I have seen this too many times.  Even the color of a cable as long as you can see it cause people to latch onto perceived differences and place them on one vs the other.  Then you simply can't get those out of your head.  No human can. 

Go back and read his longer explanation in a different post and I think you will see it was blind. He also has repeatedly referred to it as blind, and I don't think he would do that if it wasn't. 

[esldude]

Just now, firedog said:

Go back and read his longer explanation in a different post and I think you will see it was blind. He also has repeatedly referred to it as blind, and I don't think he would do that if it wasn't. 

Awful long thread at this point.  Can you point to it.  Or perhaps more simply, Jud can tell us how it was done.  I trust he is telling the truth, and I may have misremembered his description. 

[Jud]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

An imaginary customer?

 

You are certainly a vociferous advocate for this co. - do you have any sort of relation with them?

 

An "imaginary customer" who posted in threads here in April? Flail much?

 

As for my relationship, first, I consider myself a friend of Alex and John's.  This has given me the mighty mental power to conjure up an imaginary customer to post in the forum here about the 30-day satisfaction guarantee back in April, more than a month before it magically appeared to you.

 

Second, as I've posted prominently in each of two forum comments where I've talked about my listening experience with the current production model, in return for testing Alex provided me a production model for free.  I did that so anyone considering purchasing one could evaluate my comments knowing this.

 

By the way, I believe what "the other person" said was that he couldn't find it in Google or in the site footer, if I understand him correctly.  If I do, it would leave you as the only one claiming to have read that full product page and not found it.

[AnotherSpin]

Everybody has an indefeasible right to like or dislike whatever he or she chooses. Measurable data, or shape, or smell, or weather outside the window, whatever is used to support the choice is non-significant. There is no way to convince in favor or against.

 

[semente]

4 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

Mind you, this is even 16/44.1. So see ? nothing to see. And of course this is one plot only from a topic of where I knew I put a plot. But I tried forever ...

 

 

Hi Peter, could you change the X axis to logarithmic and publish both with and without your USB isolator/filter?

It would widen the base of the 1K tone and maybe show some significant difference as per @jabbr