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

[plissken]

Here is what I read to get a dusting over of USB Eye Patterns:

 

https://dl.cdn-anritsu.com/en-us/test-measurement/files/Application-Notes/Application-Note/11410-00533.pdf

[semente]

1 hour 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. 

 

What would you be able to determine by measuring the analogue output?

 

Which parameters would be affected?

[plissken]

3 minutes ago, semente said:

 

What would you be able to determine by measuring the analogue output?

 

Which parameters would be affected?

That is a question for Uptone. What parameters do they claim to be effecting? 

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Yes, it is there now, was not there before [before the page first appeared around April 25th - JF].  The other product pages have still not been updated.

 

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

 

Fixed that for you.

[Jud]

16 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Jud did make some unsupported claims, but went back on them.

 

Jud is unaware of what you are talking about, and would appreciate clarification.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, rb2013 said:

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...

The take home message you should have learned is measuring gear can tell you the most accurate piece of gear.  Your ears aren't good at measuring.  Therefore what sounds better is not more accurate.  What sounds pleasing is of course most pleasing.

[Daudio]

1 hour ago, rb2013 said:

The ONLY truth is the smile on one's face while listening to great music.

 

ahhh... do you mean 'listening to great music in great sound' ?

 

I'm suprised at how often on CA I see those two basic ideas conflated. It's really quite odd considering our common hobby !?!

 

[Ralf11]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Fixed that for you.

 

No you didn't.

 

re the other posts you thanked plissken for "clarification"

 

can we assume your listening test used your system as noted in your sig.?

[AJ Soundfield]

4 minutes ago, semente said:

 

What would you be able to determine by measuring the analogue output?

Whether it changed with the DUT in signal path. This is very basic if one is claiming "audible" changes with a digital signal. Analog waveforms are a must.

 

Which parameters would be affected?

That is for the manufacturer/claimant to specify. Burden of proof is always on them.

If they designed, engineered and manufactured "it" into the widget, then they must specify the metric.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

9 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Thanks!

Unfortunately, eye patterns are not what we hear, as they are only about an interim communications step in the USB linkage affecting the input to the DAC.  That interim step and the quality of its eye pattern may or may not affect the output of audio signal from the DAC. That output analog signal is also measurable in numerous ways, and those measurements characterize what we hear.

[plissken]

11 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Jud is unaware of what you are talking about, and would appreciate clarification.

 

How much time you got

[semente]

6 minutes ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Unfortunately, eye patterns are not what we hear, as they are only about an interim communications step in the USB linkage affecting the input to the DAC.  That interim step and the quality of its eye pattern may or may not affect the output of audio signal from the DAC. That output analog signal is also measurable in numerous ways, and those measurements characterize what we hear.

 

But it would, I presume, help determine if the regeneration is indeed improving the data transfer?

 

 

[Jud]

1 hour 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 

 

Ah, that's the reason for the confusion - I paid $375 for the DAC.  (Guess I got ripped!  )

 

What I own is a function to some extent of how I got here, and depending on what someone else was asking, it might not be the way I'd advise spending their budget.

 

As I've mentioned here and previously in other threads, I received the ISO Regen for free.  I purchased the original Regen previously for a DAC I partly DIY'd.  I managed to screw up a circuit board on that, and it was less expensive to buy my current DAC than to get the old one fixed.  I really enjoy this DAC, because it allows me to use my own filtering.  I then bought an LPS-1.  I could have replaced the iFi with probably a TEAC for around $1000, but why spend $600 more than the cost of the LPS-1 when I liked the DAC I had?

 

If someone with no current system asked me how to budget the $1000 I might well recommend the TEAC (I did to Bill when he asked).  But on the signal side I don't know whether the TEAC's USB input is superior to the ISO Regen powered by the LPS-1; on the power side the iFi uses a battery, so you won't get better isolation than that.  And for the DAC function, since I'm sending DSD256 to the DAC, I don't know whether the TEAC's final analog filter is superior to that used in the iFi.  Also, getting the iFi and the other stuff allows you to upgrade your DAC at some point in the future and still have the nifty ultracap power supply plus the ISO Regen.  So it would really depend on what whoever was asking me for a recommendation wanted in a DAC.  If it was you I'd recommend the TEAC with network connectivity because of your liking for that interface.

[Jud]

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

No you didn't.

 

re the other posts you thanked plissken for "clarification"

 

That's right, when he clarified that he was talking about a time period previous to the ISO Regen page going up.  Please do try to read for comprehension.

 

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

can we assume your listening test used your system as noted in your sig.?

 

I didn't have the USPCB at that time, but otherwise yes.  I also use in place of the MBP and Audirvana+ a CuBox as an NAA (run from a battery) and HQPlayer.

[esldude]

You fellows measuring this:

 

What do you do about differential clock speeds between the DUT and measuring device?

 

It makes a difference more so as you get closer in to the target frequency.  What I have been doing to get cleaner more consistent results is rather than use a 12 khz tone use a 11,999.85 hz to 12,000.15 hz sweep over 4 minutes.  Then do no averaging on the FFT.  I find the spot where the measuring device read exactly 12 khz or as close as possible.  I have been using 128 k FFTs.  I suppose with 1 million or certainly 32 million this makes less difference.

 

As an example the red trace is 12 khz tone, but a clock difference causes the ADC to record it at a higher frequency which happens to split almost evenly the FFT bins.  In the green trace I used a very slow sweep and found the spot that was closest to being 12 khz exactly for the ADC.  This results in a more than 20 db difference at a 5.1 hz offset.  This detail will obscure close in differences. 

 

The second image is zoomed out where they look virtually identical. 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

4 minutes ago, semente said:

 

But it would, I presume, help determine if the regeneration is indeed improving the data transfer?

 

 

Unfortunately, no.  The data gets through just fine and uncorrupted even in cases where eye patters are somewhat distorted.  I don't think the eye pattern, tells inexperienced lay audiophiles like you and me anything at all about the sound. But, that is what Uptone relies on for their published measurements to buyers, not measurements of the analog audio from the DAC.

 

That is a point of contention between Amir and Uptone.  Amir insists on measurements from the analog output if the DAC.  Swenson and Uptone have no such measurement capabilities, and they have chosen not to acquire them. 

[Jud]

1 minute ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

Swenson and Uptone have no such measurement capabilities, and they have chosen not to acquire them. 

 

Yes, John conspired to be laid off from his job, retire, and do an interstate move just to avoid this.

[plissken]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

Yes, John conspired to be laid off from his job, retire, and do an interstate move just to avoid this.

 

This particular point was made when the original regen went on market and Alex was stating they sold 2000 regens. I'm not sure what the profit margin nor their overhead is. But 2000 X $10 is enough to purchase equipment meant for the this industry.

 

This has nothing to do with John moving.

 

 

[Ralf11]

Jud - We disagree on when the 30 day guarantee went up on their web page.  Yet you have never stated that you reviewed their web page - or when.  I did and it was not there, but later was put up (with emphasis).  I don't particularly care about them, but I find your responses odd, at a minimum.  And please cease your ad hominem attacks.

 

I also ask - again - whether you have any connection with this company other than being a customer.  Do you represent them, or what?

 

 

[Jud]

Just now, plissken said:

 

This particular point was made when the original regen went on market and Alex was stating they sold 2000 regens. I'm not sure what the profit margin nor their overhead is. But 2000 X $10 is enough to purchase equipment meant for the this industry.

 

This has nothing to do with John moving.

 

 

 

So you measure analog differences and then the next question is, are they audible?  Too bad no one's done objective, unbiased listening tests on the ISO Regen - oh, wait....

[Tone Deaf]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Jud - We disagree on when the 30 day guarantee went up on their web page.  

We disagree too....

[esldude]

6 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

 

Not saying that it is ... I am saying that regardless of the phase error of the clock, the linewidth is measurable. If the linewidth is 0.8 Hz then you need 0.1 Hz increments to reasonably measure. Should we try and improve on that? I have no idea. Now suppose I used 3 different power supplies and got 0.8, 5 and 10 Hz, would that be audible? 

 

Note the linewidth is being defined as the width at 50% height. There's also the skirt which IIRC is a combination of "flicker" and "shot" noise.

Seems to me 50% height in these audio plots is problematic.  It can be effected what height is by the base level noise floor.  Seems a better suggestion would be to compare levels compared to the carrier tone at some standard offset like say 5 hz.  Or to compare width in hz at some arbitrary level down from the carrier tone like maybe -80 db. 

 

I will note my opinion is from masking effects these concerns are overblown.  I think this close in with current gear all this is not making an audible difference.  While I don't oppose better performance I don't think improving this will net a change in sound quality. 

[plissken]

6 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

So you measure analog differences and then the next question is, are they audible?  Too bad no one's done objective, unbiased listening tests on the ISO Regen - oh, wait....

 

John Atkinson measured the Regen and the included power supply actually made the measurements worse but I think it was below -120dB so not audible. 

[mansr]

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

What do you do about differential clock speeds between the DUT and measuring device?

Nothing. A slight difference only shifts the spectrum sideways a little. Peak widths and such are not affected. Clock speed variations are too low, by a few orders of magnitude, for anyone to hear, so absolute numbers aren't that interesting.

15 minutes ago, esldude said:

As an example the red trace is 12 khz tone, but a clock difference causes the ADC to record it at a higher frequency which happens to split almost evenly the FFT bins.

In that case, increase the FFT resolution.

[esldude]

So many posts about the 30 day return policy.  Let us give it a rest.  I was not interested in the product and remember it being 30 days from way back at the introduction.  Even if it were ever an issue it has not been for some time and most certainly is not currently.  If someone didn't make it obvious on their site it really is no big deal.  You are just cluttering an already cluttered thread.