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

[christopher3393]

10 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

If you are in the business of designing audio equipment I should expect so. You can either get the equipment in house or you can send out product to a lab for measurement.

 

So let me ask this:

 

Is it acceptable for a company to design with a shoot from the hip approach where they actually have no way to analyze what their equipment is doing? 

 

Loaded question. "Shoot from the hip": is that a fair characterization? And by analyze do you include listening? Or only standards acceptable as state of the art strict science, so that only a strictly measurable/ adequately blind testable results count?

[plissken]

26 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I'm seeing $310 for the ISO Regen without power supply, $325 with switching supply, and $655 total for an ISO Regen bundled together with an ultracapacitor power supply.

 

I'm taking my queue from your signature as to what it is taking you to get the most out of a $349 DAC. It's not the way I would allocate my budget. Everyone's MMV 

[mansr]

1 minute ago, christopher3393 said:

Loaded question. "Shoot from the hip": is that a fair characterization?

Would you prefer the term "stab in the dark"?

[plissken]

1 minute ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Loaded question. "Shoot from the hip": is that a fair characterization?

 

Ok. A shot in the dark. Better? 

 

Let me ask you this: How are you going to convince anyone with reasonable intelligence that you can design audiophile product in a vacuum. That is absent any ability to measure the analog output? 

 

Please make the argument that they were able to do it by ear. I dare you. 

[christopher3393]

Just now, mansr said:

Would you prefer the term "stab in the dark"?

 

Sardonic points, yes, but I think it is exaggerated and an unfair, highly biased characterization.

[Ralf11]

12 hours ago, firedog said:

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?

 

Yes, it is there now, was not there before.  The other product pages have still not been updated.

 

At any rate, one can order this inexpensive product, try it and see.

[plissken]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Would you prefer the term "stab in the dark"?

 

You beat me to it by seconds. Ninja. 

[plissken]

5 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Sardonic points, yes, but I think it is exaggerated and an unfair, highly biased characterization.

 

It's not biased! They don't have any audio centric measurement gear. It's like designing a speaker by ear with no Klippel gear. 

 

My general thought is product that can be measured whilst in the midst of being designed tends to end up being a better product. I know I'm the outlier for thinking that way. 

[rb2013]

35 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I love tubes and love the sound. I also love jFets ... my issue is when a very detailed technical explanation is proposed that makes specific technical predictions, then there is some degree of obligation to support this with reasonable measurements. I think it comes down to my objection to using the term "jitter" for marketing purposes without any evidence that "jitter" is actually being affected. ... but I guess this is just marketing...

Well the point is back then it was widely touted by EE's that the only thing that mattered in audio amps was IM and THD distortion...and tube amps had 10X more.  The testbench conclusion is that no tube amp could sound as good as a solid state one.  We heard the same with the launch of redbook CD's vs albums - again HP through cold water on that.

And here we are still working to 'perfect' digital music sources - 30+yrs later! LOL!

 

Wash, rinse, repeat...

[rb2013]

My point is the levels of complexity and subtle interactions from the PHY, MAC and PG to impedance and power to data EMI eddy effects may be just to complex to design any meaningful (predictive of SQ) measurement scheme.

 

I added the bolding.

From JS:

"When that XMOS chip is dealing with data from the host it is generating its own noise on the PG planes, part of the noise will be from the PHY and part from the MAC. The PHY part can change due to SI of the USB signal, the rest cannot, it stays the same. If separate ground planes and separate power supplies are not used, that noise can directly affect the DAC chip(s) and the master clock oscillator. As was posted from a previous post of mine, even if separate supplies and planes are used with isolation between them, the effects of this noise still winds up at the DAC chip and clock.

The part of this noise not from the PHY is always there, it doesn't matter what your cable is, what USB card you have, whether you have a REGEN etc, it's still there. All that stuff is keeping the PHY part from ADDING extra noise that makes things worse. 

The technically correct solution is to figure out how to prevent this noise from crossing the barrier and getting into the DAC chip and clock, unfortunately this is really tough and nobody has yet to completely figured out how to do this. Thus every DAC ever built will have some level of susceptibility to external influences, some more some less." 

 

So here besides the USB receiver AGC modulation, the impedance caused reflections, you have the XMOS chip itself modulating noise as it responds to the data stream.  

 

So is jitter the only thing to measure?  And which kind of jitter?

Maybe some other things going on that have yet to be identified (like differences in how the 'ear' related to 2nd and 3rd order HD used to explain peoples preference fort tube vs SS amplification).

https://www.sitime.com/support2/documents/AN10007-Jitter-and-measurement.pdf

[patagent]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

@plissken

 

Some of his measurements and narrative are similar to this example, make sure you read the entire thing and come back often to see if it has been updated / corrected.

 

 

 

 

CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX

CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX

CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX

CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX

CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX

CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX

 

 

 

 

 

just received info from scientific community ...

 

 

i guess it's real.

 

 

 

 

"Science" is  not really science unless it provides a testable model that predicts future outcomes.  The problem with "climate science" is that there is a lot of data but no one has any real idea how to realistically model something as complicated as the climate.  This strongly implies that we know very little of what's actually going on.  Unfortunately, most people's blind faith in science prevents them from admitting that we know way too little to make strong conclusions.  As far as I'm concerned, both sides take on overly strong opinions on this matter. 

 

Disclaimer: I am a scientist (PhD in chemistry) and personally believe man is affecting our climate but have no clue as to how much - I'm a stronger believer that it's always better to err on the side of caution.

[jabbr]

33 minutes ago, rb2013 said:

But using a static 1kHz test tone - is not real world

Of course it's not real world. "Jitter" isn't either -- it's a concept that is bandied about with its "femtosecond clocks". I am providing a straightforward test of the close-in phase error of a DAC including its clock & power supply. This allows testable hypotheses to be made for those that want to use engineering principles for other than marketing.

 

Oh and I have a project to measure the realtime phase error in a DAC playing real music -- it's possible now but not without a lot of work and expensive equipment. The test I've proposed is a simple quick and dirty measure of phase error for those that don't have this equipment. So for that you use a pure tone.

[jhwalker]

29 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Yes, it is there now, was not there before.  

 

I *really* wish you'd stop making this claim - you're wrong.

 

The latest Internet "wayback machine" capture of the products page is from November of 2016 - you're right, it wasn't there then (hint:  the ISO Regen *page* was not even there then)!  But the information *was* there as of 30 May (still cached at Google as of that date), which was well before you started complaining about it not being there a few days ago.

 

Basically, you're calling Alex a liar, and that's not fair or true.

[plissken]

1 minute ago, jhwalker said:

 

I *really* wish you'd stop making this claim - you're wrong.

 

The latest Internet "wayback machine" capture of the products page is from November of 2016 - you're right, it wasn't there then (hint:  the ISO Regen *page* was not even there then)!  But the information *was* there as of 30 May (still cached at Google as of that date), which was well before you started complaining about it not being there a few days ago.

 

Basically, you're calling Alex a liar, and that's not fair or true.

 

I was the one to first bring it up. As of the last time I check the site months ago there was zero text about a 30 day MBG. 

 

Look dude, it is what it is. I'm glad it's there now. 

[semente]

33 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Ok. A shot in the dark. Better? 

 

Let me ask you this: How are you going to convince anyone with reasonable intelligence that you can design audiophile product in a vacuum. That is absent any ability to measure the analog output? 

 

Please make the argument that they were able to do it by ear. I dare you. 

 

If I understand it correctly the Regen regenerates data and provides clean power in a USB connection; to an uneducated computer end-user like myself this seems like a step in the right direction.

 

The next question is: does the Regen solve a "real" problem or an "imaginary" one?

 

And even though I wouldn't mind giving it a listen I would like to see some measurements.

The problem is that the necessary measurements have apparently not yet been conceived...

[plissken]

I'm going to go with what John Swenson said about cable length: Keep it at 3 feet and under and you won't have problems that need to be addressed WRT to signal integrity. 

[rando]

37 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

I'm taking my queue from your signature as to what it is taking you to get the most out of a $349 DAC. It's not the way I would allocate my budget. Everyone's MMV 

 

Sorry for the interjection.

 

If cost is not an issue why is something that costs very little an issue?  I was, and remain, highly critical where this test is concerned.  However, you can't tell me replacing a stereo receiver with a DAC is not an important change in consumer buying.  Everyone has video and audio files on their phone and computer they use exclusively which are hard to connect to their home A/V system.

[semente]

24 minutes ago, patagent said:

 

"Science" is  not really science unless it provides a testable model that predicts future outcomes.  The problem with "climate science" is that there is a lot of data but no one has any real idea how to realistically model something as complicated as the climate.  This strongly implies that we know very little of what's actually going on.  Unfortunately, most people's blind faith in science prevents them from admitting that we know way too little to make strong conclusions.  As far as I'm concerned, both sides take on overly strong opinions on this matter. 

 

Disclaimer: I am a scientist (PhD in chemistry) and personally believe man is affecting our climate but have no clue as to how much - I'm a stronger believer that it's always better to err on the side of caution.

 

Caution, in my view, would be to reduce emission levels (just in case...).

 

But this will cost money and reduce productivity; and you can't make America great (again?) like that.

[plissken]

1 minute ago, semente said:

 

If I understand it correctly the Regen regenerates data and provides clean power in a USB connection; to an uneducated computer end-user like myself this seems like a step in the right direction.

 

The next question is: does the Regen solve a "real" problem or an "imaginary" one?

 

And even though I wouldn't mind giving it a listen I would like to see some measurements.

The problem is that the necessary measurements have apparently not yet been conceived...

 

The claim is improved analog output via the path of increased S.I. It is what it is. Plus I already posted an Eye pattern from Tektronix showing very clean output without use of a regen product from 2009. 

[semente]

2 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

The claim is improved analog output via the path of increased S.I. It is what it is. Plus I already posted an Eye pattern from Tektronix showing very clean output without use of a regen product from 2009. 

 

Sorry for the foundation-level question but what is the eye-pattern analysing/representing?

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, semente said:

If I understand it correctly the Regen regenerates data and provides clean power in a USB connection; to an uneducated computer end-user like myself this seems like a step in the right direction.

 

The next question is: does the Regen solve a "real" problem or an "imaginary" one?

 

And even though I wouldn't mind giving it a listen I would like to see some measurements.

The problem is that the necessary measurements have apparently not yet been conceived...

Precisely. If the supposed effect can't be measured, how can you be sure you're not actually making things worse?

[Ralf11]

23 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

 

I *really* wish you'd stop making this claim - you're wrong.

 

The latest Internet "wayback machine" capture of the products page is from November of 2016 - you're right, it wasn't there then (hint:  the ISO Regen *page* was not even there then)!  But the information *was* there as of 30 May (still cached at Google as of that date), which was well before you started complaining about it not being there a few days ago.

 

Basically, you're calling Alex a liar, and that's not fair or true.

 

Please read the relevant comments again, as you are wrong and are confused about some implications of what I did say.  Nor have I called Alex a liar at any time.  Jud did make some unsupported claims, but went back on them.

 

I DO think they need to clean up their web site a bit, OTOH this seems to be a very small co.

[mansr]

9 minutes ago, semente said:

Sorry for the foundation-level question but what is the eye-pattern analysing/representing?

In the USB signal, bits are encoded as a transition or lack thereof at regularly spaced points. Between these points the level should remain constant. Setting a scope to trigger on any edge and overlaying many sweeps produces the eye pattern. If the signal is good, transitions are confined to a limited region while the interior of the eye is clean. Scopes usually allow defining the permitted and keep-out areas of the signal with an event recorded any time a violation occurs. This is known as mask testing.

[christopher3393]

44 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Ok. A shot in the dark. Better? 

 

Let me ask you this: How are you going to convince anyone with reasonable intelligence that you can design audiophile product in a vacuum. That is absent any ability to measure the analog output? 

 

Please make the argument that they were able to do it by ear. I dare you. 

 

43 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

It's not biased! They don't have any audio centric measurement gear. It's like designing a speaker by ear with no Klippel gear. 

 

My general thought is product that can be measured whilst in the midst of being designed tends to end up being a better product. I know I'm the outlier for thinking that way. 

 

My point was that if you are generalizing about the whole process of product development by characterizing it as ridiculous because adequate testing was not performed and publish, it would be more accurate to apply your critique to testing as your solecomplaint rather than demean the whole propcess and product. You don't really know one way or the other how good this product is or is not under optimal real world conditions, do you?

 

 It has also not been clear to me that there is consensus regarding the adequacy and practicality of the testing that you believe will give the proper results.

 

And of course measurement along the way seems like a better idea and I don't think you are an outlier. Do you really think you are on this point?

 

I have an iFi iUSB 3.0, but do not have a rigorous understanding of how it measured up in testing. But I did the best I could to blind test it and the imrovement in my particular situation was pleasantly obvious. But still it took me a lot of listening to  have what I'll call relatively adequate confidence that the net result is improvement. And now I completely ignore it and just listen  with what I have and assume that it is for my practical purposes adequate.

 

What someone in Alex's situation should have to do, what testing is imperative for him to do to operate in good conscience is not something I'm qualified to address from my own background. I have to rely on a certain amount of consensus from reviews and forums like this, And I will own that this may also be colored by the fact that I like Alex and John and the way they generally interact around here. I'm not suggesting that this should be adequate for you, but would recommend that you please try to be less personal and more objective in this overheated situation.

 

Two cents over.

[semente]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

In the USB signal, bits are encoded as a transition or lack thereof at regularly spaced points. Between these points the level should remain constant. Setting a scope to trigger on any edge and overlaying many sweeps produces the eye pattern. If the signal is good, transitions are confined to a limited region while the interior of the eye is clean. Scopes usually allow defining the permitted and keep-out areas of the signal with an event recorded any time a violation occurs. This is known as mask testing.

 

Thanks!