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

[mmerrill99]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Zero as well but, unlike the two of you armchair quarterbacks, I'm not the one lecturing others on how to do their jobs or run their business. 

Or that they want 'measurements' but don't really understand what this means or what to do with the 'measurements' when they get them - more arguments, I predict 

[Daudio]

26 minutes ago, semente said:

Listening won't be of much use

 

I also add you to my IGNORED USERS list for severe cluelessness. No need to waste further time reading nonsense.

 

[Jud]

15 minutes ago, wwaldmanfan said:

 

All that proved was the 25% chance that both subjects would pick the same sample even if neither one had listened to either of the samples.

 

I think it's actually a bit more than that.  As I noted, we each independently reported that we quickly determined a strong preference for one unit over the other.  To me that's a 25% chance for each one of us - G vs. M, strong vs.weak preference.  (I'm discounting no preference, though I felt consciously it was certainly a choice, because as Dennis pointed out, the mere fact of labeling one G and the other M might create a subconscious bias toward finding a difference.)

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, Daudio said:

I also add you to my IGNORED MEMBERS list for severe cluelessness. No need to waste further time reading nonsense.

When adding others to their ignore lists, why do people feel the need to trumpet this news to the world? Do they think it's something to be proud of? I just don't get it.

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

1. ridiculous stance of maintaining

2. Alex was lying

 

 

 

1. more ad hominem attacks 

2. please read for comprehension - I never said that, and stated as much earlier today

 

Got it???

[mmerrill99]

7 minutes ago, Daudio said:

Listening won't be of much use

7 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

I also add you to my IGNORED MEMBERS list for severe cluelessness. No need to waste further time reading nonsense.

Yes, it's really bedazzling how deep down the rabbit hole some people can go - I'm sure what's up is down & what's down is up now in their world?

 

[semente]

6 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

I also add you to my IGNORED USERS list for severe cluelessness. No need to waste further time reading nonsense.

 

 

How can I understand "how the Regen can improve data transfer and consequently D/A performance" through listening.

Not that I care if you read me or not but either you are reading too quickly or my English is not good enough...

[mmerrill99]

3 minutes ago, semente said:

 

How can I understand "how the Regen can improve data transfer and consequently D/A performance" through listening.

Not that I care if you read me or not but either you are reading too quickly or my English is not good enough...

It's not your English that's faulty - it's your logic

[semente]

1 minute ago, mmerrill99 said:

It's not your English that's faulty - it's your logic

 

Care to elaborate?

[mmerrill99]

3 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Care to elaborate?

Not until you answer what measurements you wish to see (that you will understand) before you will "have a listen"

[semente]

Just now, mmerrill99 said:

Not until you answer what measurements you wish to see before you will "have a listen"

 

I probably won't have a listen.

The Regen is more expensive than and doesn't work with my current DAC and it'll probably cost 30% over what a US resident will pay for it due to shipping and taxes.

My future USB DAC will be a custom design with galvanic isolation.

 

Please do not elaborate.

I don't give a turd.

[Fitzcaraldo215]

22 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Or that they want 'measurements' but don't really understand what this means or what to do with the 'measurements' when they get them - more arguments, I predict 

Hey, John Kenny.  I thought Chris had banned you.  Is that why you need to disguise your ID?

[Daudio]

14 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Yes, it's really bedazzling how deep down the rabbit hole some people can go

 

Bedazzling for a little bit, but sloughing thru bullshit can ruin your day. I've discovered that I can ignore the crap and a_holes and enjoy a better quality of information, and quality of life, whatever's  left 

 

[jtwrace]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I agree, measurements posted by manufacturers would be good. I don't think everyone would believe those measurements though. 

 

Perhaps a technical editor could be used before publishing potentially damaging claims. 

That's true, I don't think everyone would believe them because they can't take their bias out.  That said a manufacture such as UpTone says some very contradicting things.  They started building the REGEN and sold thousands and after I and others asked about measurements the statement from Alex and John was that there isn't any equipment available to measure it and John would build something to do so.  Well, sorry but if that's really the case then the next project should've been to build it and have it peer reviewed (after a patent) before the ISO REGEN and which they then have created a standard for.  Further, showing an "eye pattern" without any sort of technical description of the "what" and "why" is pretty much useless not to mention the constant bashing of how to measure anything.  I simply ask the question of how did anything get designed if it's so hard to measure anything since the equipment isn't available?  

[rb2013]

I have no dislike of Amir - in fact find his test results and posts interesting...esp the one identifying the 'glitching' in the Yggy's AD5891BRUZ DAC chips.  

 

And if I were Alex - I'd sell him a ISO Regen and send it with a box of chocolates and a note: "Chocolates to be enjoyed while you fiddle with your measurements".  No matter his results the ISO Regen will sell well if the word of mouth SQ is there for many folks.   That 'Gliching' thing didn't stop the flood of folks from buying Yggys.

 

I think Amir has a problem with his approach of measuring his DAC analog outputs - and that is 'inference'.

ie "b :  the act of passing from statistical sample data to generalizations (as of the value of population parameters) usually with calculated degrees of certainty."

 

So by measuring his DAC analog outputs he's inserting 2 layers of inference:

Consider the PC>DAC chain.  There are two parts (really three and I'll get to that). 

 

1st the conversion of USB data to a digital audio waveform, ie SPDIF, AES, i2s.  Whether this is done by an ext DDC or an internal (inside the DAC) USB board.

 

2nd the conversion of that digital audio waveform to an analog signal.

 

So by his measuring the potential change in the DAC analog output - for good or worse - may not apply to anyone else's DAC/USB/PC chain.  The results would only be 'valid' for his specific DAC and USB converter.

With the great verity of DDC's and DAC's out there,this would likely be of little practical value to most people.

Not any better then someone's sighted listening impressions.

 

His two layer inference is that his measurements would be yours.  Not to mention his PC converting the stored music files into a USB data stream (along with all the nasty stuff that happens to that USB data in the CPU and MB chipsets).  So really three layers of inference.

 

And this is the problem with all these kind of measurements - a kind of universalistic std needs to be imposed.  One that hopefully aligns with SQ differences...a tall order...

[Jud]

37 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

1. more ad hominem attacks 

2. please read for comprehension - I never said that, and stated as much earlier today

 

Got it???

 

Not in the least, nor do I wish to spend any more time trying.  Life's too short to waste with this non-audio stuff.  At least for now, I'm putting you on my thankfully very short ignore list. (In answer to mansr, I think this is a courtesy in some circumstances to let others know you won't see their posts so they don't waste any time trying to communicate with you.)

[rb2013]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

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.

Well measuring phase error in realtime, with real music, would certainly be a major advance.  My experience is that phase 'noise' in clocks is far more important then period jitter.  

 

Back in my Gustard  U12 thread on HF it was universally acclaimed to improve SQ results by swapping out the Chinese TXCO clocks for CCHD-975's.  The Crysteks had orders of magnitude less phase noise - but the TXCO's claimed orders of magnitude better stability (1ppb vs 25ppm).  With the Recovery vs the Regen Amber -  I much preferred the RuR with it's Crystek clocks - even though the RuR had higher noise LDO's then the Regen.  I had a long running debate with Alex about this on the Regen HF thread.  In the end he finally admitted I was right (long phone call a while ago) and they wisely used the CCHD-575 clocks in the ISO Regen.

 

So this ability to RT measure real music could yield the 'Holy Grail' of measurements..one can hope

[rb2013]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

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.

You are so right...maybe we should ask for a person's Audiologists hearing test report be published along with their gear chain, when they post sighted listening results!

 

Joking of course...

 

PS Are there some forms of 'jitter' (digital distortions) that some folks find pleasing?  I wonder.

[AJ Soundfield]

2 hours 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....

Someone has done so?

Link?

[mansr]

18 minutes ago, Jud said:

In answer to mansr, I think this is a courtesy in some circumstances to let others know you won't see their posts so they don't waste any time trying to communicate with you.

Funny how they still keep on replying.

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, rb2013 said:

 

 

PS Are there some forms of 'jitter' (digital distortions) that some folks find pleasing?  I wonder.

 

 

Many reviewer's think so - USB cables that "really nail the mid-range" and all that.  I want to know what the manufacturers are doing to "tune" jitter in just such a way that only the mid's are effected in a digital cable...

 

[Jud]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

Funny how they still keep on replying.

 

What?

[The Computer Audiophile]

In the words of one Sargeant Hulka, to Francis Sawyer - "Lighten up Francis."

 

After reading more of this thread, I believe many of us should take Sargeant Hulka's advice. Nobody is saving babies or killing (Klingon) puppies here. 

 

Live and let live. 

 

 

 

[firedog]

15 minutes ago, rb2013 said:

PS Are there some forms of 'jitter' (digital distortions) that some folks find pleasing?  I wonder.

Yes. Several times I've read of tests showing higher jitter devices sounding better to some people than lower jitter versions. 

There can be euphonic jitter just like there can be euphonic analog distortion.

[Ralf11]

41 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

 I'm putting you on my ...ignore list. 

 

Thanks!

 

You can add the other people who have called you out on various things too.