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

[Daudio]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Sound more like Jud is beta testing different versions of the device vs each other, rather than Regen vs no Regen

 

Duh, that's what he has been saying thru dozens of post, re-posts, quotes, re-quotes, til I'm sick of reading the same simple, straightforward listening report over and over and over again !

 

And in most cases it was repeated due to some 'questioner' with IMHO a less then honorable agenda

 

I'm not saying that is you. maybe you are just catching up with a thread I've watched since the beginning, but, it does give me pause...

 

It is what it is. move on...

 

[jtwrace]

14 hours ago, jtwrace said:

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?  

 

4 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

Duh, that's what he has been saying thru dozens of post, re-posts, quotes, re-quotes, til I'm sick of reading the same simple, straightforward listening report over and over and over again !

 

And in most cases it was repeated due to some 'questioner' with IMHO a less then honorable agenda

 

I'm not saying that is you. maybe you are just catching up with a thread I've watched since the beginning, but, it does give me pause...

 

It is what it is. move on...

 

It would've certainly been better to do what I mentioned above but since that is being ignored by @Superdad @JohnSwenson I guess it will continue to go on the merry-go-around with purely subjective views.  

[rb2013]

In the end even blind ABX testing suffers from inference flaws...that is the testers hearing and subjective preferences, equipment, room, etc...are different then yours.  So the 'inference' is that the device in question will yield the same sound effects in your system as it did when they heard it.

 

Sorry measurement testing of the kind Amir is talking about (measure the end point of a very long digital source chain), is worse.  Why? Obviously it still leave one more major 'inference' that of course the measurement with correlate with greater musical enjoyment.

 

Now with USB it's worse as you can have a whole host of devices interacting with each other, and the power supplies to each having a major influence.  The permutations are nearly endless.  So if device A yields a 10% measurement gain, and device B a 20%, if is likley the combination of the two will yield a 30% gain.  Maybe they work against each other - and the net result is zero.

 

This goal of striving for an object universial yardstick in a subject field is fools gold.

[rb2013]

Then Amir has to post this:

"For now, you "heard" nothing. You perceived a change. Your hearing system is constantly filtering immense amount of data it is capturing into short-term memory. That memory has enough capacity for a few seconds. A massive, hugely lossy filter dumps ton of data out of short term memory and remembers a few things. This is normally on autopilot. When you change gear, you influence what you are remembering in long term memory and that capture is different than autopilot mode. You brain then concludes that a difference must have existed at your inner ear. In reality, the same stimulus came into your brain but you were influenced by what you were thinking."

So this is complete rubbish.  That  high end audio gear SQ improvements are a placebic illusion.  When anyone who has tried different gear (including USB cables) over the years knows to be wrong.  There is an ontological effect going on - a real world improvement in the sound quality.

 

According to his logic - it would be best to remove the least accurate part of the audio chain - the human.

 

Replace them with an audio listening robot - with perfect 'hearing' and an audio analyzer for a 'brain'.  Then just let the robot listen to the music and tell you about it.  An hour of specs on the frequency distribution, channel matching and separation, room nodes interactions, decibel levels, noise levels, etc...WOW that would be fun! (sarc)

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Ah yes.  Very curious to hear how many audiophiles are also amateur astronomers. Both have been my hobbies for a very long time

 

I'm virtually an astronomer: http://www.usvao.org/about-vao/index.html

 

this project is one of my all time favorites  -- yeah semantic web!

 

not to further pollute this toxic thread with good stuff

 

[Daudio]

5 minutes ago, jtwrace said:

I guess it will continue to go on the merry-go-around with purely subjective views.

 

Yes, as it should be, since they are the only relevant measure of a device intended for use by human ears.

 

Get used to it !
 

Look over the content of the CA forums, and you'll find the majority of posts are listening reports, listening comparisons, guesses as to how various gear combinations might sound, requests for listener opinions, and so on. Measurements are few and far between ! With all the aggressively vocal 'objectivists' here on CA you might think it would be different, but no. And most of the DIY measurements I have seen here were, to be kind, lame And when pinned to the wall, as has happened in this thread, their arguments generally fall away like chaff from the wheat.

 

I have no problem with technical measurements. There are absolutely necessary, but are only part of the tool kit. I have a big problem with people who think that they are the only tool.

 

I respect them as much as I would respect a man who went into a machine gun fight armed only with a sword. Some may applaud his bravery. I only see a dead fool...

 

CA is rife with misunderstanding and myths about human hearing, and thus does a disservice to all audiophiles. Jud's long post a little ways back is a case in point. He in some ways acts as a kind of a Computer Audiophile institutional memory, which is really great, but... I don't have time to go into detail now, but that post was laden with myths and misapprehensions that have built up over time here with the eager assistance of the bully boys of the extreme 'objectionist' faction. Not exactly a free exchange of ideas

 

So please cut out this ridiculous dismissal of the power of human hearing. It only makes you less smart

 

P.S. this is not just for @jtwrace, but for everyone who thinks listening reports are useless (and you know who you are)

 

[lmitche]

30 minutes ago, rb2013 said:

Then Amir has to post this:

"For now, you "heard" nothing. You perceived a change. Your hearing system is constantly filtering immense amount of data it is capturing into short-term memory. That memory has enough capacity for a few seconds. A massive, hugely lossy filter dumps ton of data out of short term memory and remembers a few things. This is normally on autopilot. When you change gear, you influence what you are remembering in long term memory and that capture is different than autopilot mode. You brain then concludes that a difference must have existed at your inner ear. In reality, the same stimulus came into your brain but you were influenced by what you were thinking."

So this is complete rubbish.  That  high end audio gear SQ improvements are a placebic illusion.  When anyone who has tried different gear (including USB cables) over the years knows to be wrong.  There is an ontological effect going on - a real world improvement in the sound quality.

 

According to his logic - it would be best to remove the least accurate part of the audio chain - the human.

 

Replace them with an audio listening robot - with perfect 'hearing' and an audio analyzer for a 'brain'.  Then just let the robot listen to the music and tell you about it.  An hour of specs on the frequency distribution, channel matching and separation, room nodes interactions, decibel levels, noise levels, etc...WOW that would be fun! (sarc)

You have captured the point of my smiling oscilloscope, well done!

 

Also there is no metric that captures the time domain information we hear from USB tweaks. Legacy metrics just don't capture the impact, so we only have ours ears.

[jtwrace]

2 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

Yes, as it should be, since they are the only relevant measure of a device intended for use by human ears.

 

Get used to it !
 

Look over the content of the CA forums, and you'll find the majority of posts are listening reports, listening comparisons, guesses as to how various gear combinations might sound, requests for listener opinions, and so on. Measurements are few and far between ! With all the aggressively vocal 'objectivists' here on CA you might think it would be different, but no. And most of the DIY measurements I have seen here were, to be kind, lame And when pinned to the wall, as has happened in this thread, their arguments generally fall away like chaff from the wheat.

 

I have no problem with technical measurements. There are absolutely necessary, but are only part of the tool kit. I have a big problem with people who think that they are the only tool.

 

I respect them as much as I would respect a man who went into a machine gun fight armed only with a sword. Some may applaud his bravery. I only see a dead fool...

 

CA is rife with misunderstanding and myths about human hearing, and thus does a disservice to all audiophiles. Jud's long post a little ways back is a case in point. He in some ways acts as a kind of a Computer Audiophile institutional memory, which is really great, but... I don't have time to go into detail now, but that post was laden with myths and misapprehensions that have built up over time here with the eager assistance of the bully boys of the extreme 'objectionist' faction. Not exactly a free exchange of ideas

 

So please cut out this ridiculous dismissal of the power of human hearing. It only makes you less smart

 

P.S. this is not just for @jtwrace, but for everyone who thinks listening reports are useless (and you know who you are)

 

The study that I have from Harman on this is quite amazing but again nearly all people here would pass it off since it's science based.  

[semente]

13 minutes ago, rb2013 said:

Then Amir has to post this:

"For now, you "heard" nothing. You perceived a change. Your hearing system is constantly filtering immense amount of data it is capturing into short-term memory. That memory has enough capacity for a few seconds. A massive, hugely lossy filter dumps ton of data out of short term memory and remembers a few things. This is normally on autopilot. When you change gear, you influence what you are remembering in long term memory and that capture is different than autopilot mode. You brain then concludes that a difference must have existed at your inner ear. In reality, the same stimulus came into your brain but you were influenced by what you were thinking."

So this is complete rubbish.  That  high end audio gear SQ improvements are a placebic illusion.  When anyone who has tried different gear (including USB cables) over the years knows to be wrong.  There is an ontological effect going on - a real world improvement in the sound quality.

 

According to his logic - it would be best to remove the least accurate part of the audio chain - the human.

 

Replace them with an audio listening robot - with perfect 'hearing' and an audio analyzer for a 'brain'.  Then just let the robot listen to the music and tell you about it.  An hour of specs on the frequency distribution, channel matching and separation, room nodes interactions, decibel levels, noise levels, etc...WOW that would be fun! (sarc)

 

I don't get any pleasure from comparing gear, quite the opposite actually; I do it out of necessity. Fun comes from listening to music.

So, yes, it would be nice to have a gizmo to do the listening for me.

Such gizmo would not be able to tell me which equipment or combination of equipment (system) I would like/prefer but could instead provide information regarding how accurately the equipment or system is reproducing the signal.

Which is what I look for when I perform listening assessments - and whilst I do this as best as I can, often is not enough.

 

In my limited experience more accuracy results in increased musical enjoyment for me, especially with acoustic non-amplified music.

But I know other audiophiles who prefer an expressive playback, with components that play a significant and intentional role in the reproduced sound, and perhaps the gizmo would be of no use to them.

[christopher3393]

1 minute ago, jtwrace said:

The study that I have from Harman on this is quite amazing but again nearly all people here would pass it off since it's science based.  

 

Please share. 

[crenca]

47 minutes ago, rb2013 said:

....There is an ontological effect going on - a real world improvement in the sound quality....

 

 

 

The Scholastic's reduced ontology to a branch of metaphysics in the high middle ages.  It's all been downhill from there...

[jtwrace]

16 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Please share. 

It's not for public consumption just yet.  

 

You can certainly go to Harman like I did though.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=149780.0

 

 

[AJ Soundfield]

30 minutes ago, Daudio said:

Yes, as it should be, since they are the only relevant measure of a device intended for use by human ears.

Get used to it !

Before continuing to rant, you may want to read what Jud actually wrote

17 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....

"Objective, unbiased listening tests on the ISO Regen (audibility)" is what I am referencing, the total opposite of what you are, which are simply anecdotes.

I have no issue with casual anecdotal listening. Those are purely subjective. There is nothing objective about them, nor are they in any way "tests".

The biggest problem is that most audiophiles don't know the meanings of the words objective and subjective.

Purely "Subjective" perception of the Regen and other audiophile widgets are not arguable, if one grasps the meaning of the word.

OTOH, objective claims are. Especially when "White Papers" are posited for objective claims.

I have no issue with any such device being bought for purely subjective reasons. If widget X makes an audiophile enjoy their system more, I'm all for it, regardless of cost. I say go for it if you can afford it. A subjectivist does not need any objective reasons like "less jitter" and "less noise" for a preference. An objective approach to the question does.

However, because said audiophiles can't discern between objective/subjective claims, they continue to make them, with the expectation of acceptance regardless.

[crenca]

2 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

 

I have no issue with casual anecdotal listening. Those are purely subjective. There is nothing objective about them, nor are they in any way "tests"....

The biggest problem is that most audiophiles don't know the meanings of the words objective and subjective.

"Subjective" perception of the Regen and other audiophile widgets are not arguable, if one grasps the meaning of the word.

 

 

By this definition then what Jud did was "subjective, unbiased listening tests on the ISO Regen", no?  

 

(just trying to understand what you said - not in any way question the value of what Jud did)

[christopher3393]

8 minutes ago, jtwrace said:

It's not for public consumption just yet.  

 

You can certainly go to Harman like I did though.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=149780.0

 

 

 

Thanks. I followed a series of posts by Tyll Hertsens about his visit to Harman a year ago. Interesting work (that is a bit over my head). Just wanted to say that this non-scientist would not "pass it off because it's science based".  The question regarding testing that you  raise regarding the Regen is a very important one, imo. But it doesn't look like there is a ready-to-hand workable protocol to get at what benefit it may have. You may disagree with this and know more than I do, but I can't readily right off all of those who report favorable results just because there hasn't been, or may not be practically available (cost, expense, know-how,  the need for developing a different approach to testing like jabbr and others are exploring) adequate testing. Caveat emptor.

[Daudio]

17 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

OTOH, objective claims are. Especially when "White Papers" are posited for objective claims.

 

Oh my, an Objective Extremist !  Well, you did kind of wear your biases on your sleeve, with "friend of Amir", "member of AES"

 

23 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I have no issue with any such device being bought for purely subjective reasons.

 

Well, you have surely missed the point of my post, and declared your opposition to all things 'subjective' as you belittle it so sweetly.

 

Continue on now sharpening your sword. 

 

 

P.S, I generally find that it's better for newbies to lurk for a little, or long, while before jumping into a fray without knowing the territory. Otherwise it tends to end badly...

 

 

[christopher3393]

26 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

The Scholastic's reduced ontology to a branch of metaphysics in the high middle ages.  It's all been downhill from there...

 

Not so fast, partner.    There is some very good work going on. Here are two of many examples: 

Retrieving Realism, by Hubert Dreyfus and Charles Taylor, two eminent elder philosophers of out time, and a collection from Dreyfus entitled Skillful Coping: Essays on the Phenomenology of Everyday Perception and Action. Both in their own ways make efforts toward moving beyond the Cartesian radical subject/object dichotomy, which  contributed to this subjectivism/objectivism dillemma we find ourselves in.

 

Although it isn't focused on ontology, Richard Bernstein's Beyond Objectivism and Relativism addresses philosophically a number of the divisions and impasses that affect the way we frame reality and attempts to suggest how this might be resolved. But who reads philosophy? 

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, rb2013 said:

In the end even blind ABX testing suffers from inference flaws...that is the testers hearing and subjective preferences, equipment, room, etc...are different then yours.  So the 'inference' is that the device in question will yield the same sound effects in your system as it did when they heard it.

 

Sorry measurement testing of the kind Amir is talking about (measure the end point of a very long digital source chain), is worse.  Why? Obviously it still leave one more major 'inference' that of course the measurement with correlate with greater musical enjoyment.

 

Now with USB it's worse as you can have a whole host of devices interacting with each other, and the power supplies to each having a major influence.  The permutations are nearly endless.  So if device A yields a 10% measurement gain, and device B a 20%, if is likley the combination of the two will yield a 30% gain.  Maybe they work against each other - and the net result is zero.

 

This goal of striving for an object universial yardstick in a subject field is fools gold.

Jabbr is right. This is a very toxic thread. I am reminded by Chris' wise words, no one is going to change anyone else's opinion here.

My frustration comes from the fact that the name of this site is "Computer Audiophile." So one would think that somewhere here, one would encounter an, guess what?, AUDIOPHILE. But to some, that word is synonymous with "liar."

However, to someone who has built up many, many, many, experiences with all different kinds of equipment, - it comes across as hostile envy. After all, how can you deny what someone has heard, (or not), if you were not there beside them?

Specifically with the IsoRegen: these products are NOT for the less-than-$1000 system owners. If one owns a $300 DAC & commensurate amps/speakers, - it's likely an "out of proportion" expense. Very few people purchase products out of context. Who buys $3000 speaker cables for $1500 speakers?

The Regen has its most notable affect with an USB bus on a multi-function computer. It is not the only product that has an affect on the USB signal. Any good investigation to determine effectiveness of a product is going to include listening tests. Mad speculation about how it sounds, based on some necessarily cursory measurement criteria, and not "tested" in the context from which it has been designed; is indeed a fool's errand. If one is listening to music through a 2005 laptop & Sharp boombox; (& there's nothing wrong with that), one really needs to recuse oneself from the conversation, as one is waaaaay out of scope.

[AJ Soundfield]

41 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

By this definition then what Jud did was "subjective, unbiased listening tests on the ISO Regen", no?  

No, he did a subjective listening comparison of 2 widgets. He said he had no idea of what was in each.

There is no details of any measures to account for bias.

He simply listened to 2 widgets and preferred one to the other. Hence my suggestion of a separate thread, as this is unrelated to the thread title.

[crenca]

5 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Not so fast, partner.    There is some very good work going on. Here are two of many examples: 

Retrieving Realism, by Hubert Dreyfus and Charles Taylor, two eminent elder philosophers of out time, and a collection from Dreyfus entitled Skillful Coping: Essays on the Phenomenology of Everyday Perception and Action. Both in their own ways make efforts toward moving beyond the Cartesian radical subject/object dichotomy, which  contributed to this subjectivism/objectivism dillemma we find ourselves in.

 

Although it isn't focused on ontology, Richard Bernstein's Beyond Objectivism and Relativism addresses philosophically a number of the divisions and impasses that affect the way we frame reality and attempts to suggest how this might be resolved. But who reads philosophy? 

 

Yes, who reads that stuff (few), and who reads that stuff with the background necessary to "get" it, let alone critique it (fewer still).

 

Besides, the Cartesian Self is but one side of the coin - the other (and more relevant to this thread) is the Francis Bacon (empiricism) side.  In any case, all those you cite (wonderful selection by the way!!) are still up to their heads in the presuppositions that got us (i.e. western civ) to the place we are at.  Sure, they (unlike most) start to identify the key forks in the roads but they are on the same road in my estimation.  In other words, I am pessimistic that Realism, which would necessarily entail a radical critique/rejection of nominalism, which would mean the de-construction of Bacon's "New Atlantis", is actually going to "take" in our civilization.  Western civ IS "The New Atlantis" to such a degree that a "retrevial" of anything is impossible.  The road goes forward - you can't "back up" and pick up a lost item.

 

I am not familiar with Bernstein - what are his "suggestions"?

[AJ Soundfield]

46 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

Oh my, an Objective Extremist !  Well, you did kind of wear your biases on your sleeve, with "friend of Amir", "member of AES"

That is how it might appear to someone with overactive imagination, but as my sig notes, I'm actually a loudspeaker manufacturer. As such, I often get questions from customers about source components, including things of this nature.

So I try to keep myself informed as best possible. My initial interest in the thread was both measures and what I thought Jud was saying about listening tests of the device. It turns out they were not the type of relevance to the products efficacy. That remains to be seen, objectively. Subjectively, if one is affected by these things, then objective facts should not matter one iota,

As to the Amir reference, that is a joke. I have previously held his feet to the fire to where he may no longer have any. 

Yes, due to my education, AES member. YMMV.

 

[Albrecht]

2 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

No, he did a subjective listening comparison of 2 widgets. He said he had no idea of what was in each.

There is no details of any measures to account for bias.

He simply listened to 2 widgets and preferred one to the other. Hence my suggestion of a separate thread, as this is unrelated to the thread title.

There is almost nothing but mundane statements of facts that fit into the realm of what is termed "objective."

 

Example, - A Manley Stingray is an integrated amplifier that employs the use of Tubes/Valves.

 

EVERYTHING is subjective, do you make the SUBJECTIVE choice of using Vishay or another brand of resistors? You do so because you think that they sound good for the price. Do you use Cardas lead free wire or some other brand of wire? What kind of transformer in the power supply sounds better?

When one compares a McIntosh amplifier to a LAMM, both sound EXACTLY like the manufacturer intended them to sound, they both sound different, and each represents that manufacturer's subjective opinion on what GOOD SOUND is to them.....

You made the SUBJECTIVE determination that an Intona makes your system "SOUND BETTER" with it than without it. All choices are subjective....

[semente]

12 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

There is almost nothing but mundane statements of facts that fit into the realm of what is termed "objective."

 

Example, - A Manley Stingray is an integrated amplifier that employs the use of Tubes/Valves.

 

EVERYTHING is subjective, do you make the SUBJECTIVE choice of using Vishay or another brand of resistors? You do so because you think that they sound good for the price. Do you use Cardas lead free wire or some other brand of wire? What kind of transformer in the power supply sounds better?

When one compares a McIntosh amplifier to a LAMM, both sound EXACTLY like the manufacturer intended them to sound, they both sound different, and each represents that manufacturer's subjective opinion on what GOOD SOUND is to them.....

You made the SUBJECTIVE determination that an Intona makes your system "SOUND BETTER" with it than without it. All choices are subjective....

 

"sounds good" makes sense to the listener but is worthless information for others.

This is why I defend that sound assessment through listening should be performed from an "observationist" perspective, leaving out personal preference; trying to identify shortcomings instead of "tasting".

[AJ Soundfield]

6 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

When one compares a McIntosh amplifier to a LAMM, both sound EXACTLY like the manufacturer intended them to sound

No, since you have no clue what "sound" they intended. Amplifiers are wired to loudspeakers, not ears.

Loudspeaker/room sound varies all over. Worse, if the amp has high output impedance designed to have its own "sound", then the "sound" will vary all over with speaker impedances. That's lots of "sounds" to obscure any imagined "intent".

 

Quote

You made the SUBJECTIVE determination that an Intona makes your system "SOUND BETTER" 

 

Well. since I don't own one...

[The Computer Audiophile]

HI Guys - I just want to air out something here. I'm getting a lot of feedback that this thread is the antithesis of what CA is all about. Some personal attacks and arguments not necessarily stated to help anyone better understand anything but rather to push an agenda as if this were a debate team exercise. 

 

I'm thinking about locking this thread, so we can all move on to more beneficial topics. However, the last thing I want to happen is that people see me as protecting an advertiser / sponsored forum owner (Uptone Audio). The fact that Alex and UpTone are the subject of some of this thread has absolutely zero to do with my reasons for leaning toward locking of this one. Advertisers / sponsors come and go. I would never make a decision based on an advertiser / sponsor being the subject of a topic. The whole global community is who I represent. 

 

In the long run, "toxic" threads are bad for business (my business) even though they drive traffic in the short term. I'll let this thread go a little bit longer, but I'll probably lock it up sooner rather than later. 

 

Note: UpTone Audio has not asked me to do anything with this thread.