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

[semente]

12 hours ago, mansr said:

Alex made it personal. He can fix that by selling a device to Amir.

 

I don't see why he should if he doesn't trust Amir's ability to perform meaningful, unbiased, measurements.

Which is not to say that I would not be interested in learning if people like the Regen's sound because it does what it's supposed to (isolate) or because it adds a "nice" coloration.

 

R

[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

[semente]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

This is an excellent and thoughtful post.  I would, however, like to get references if you have or can easily find them for this piece of what you wrote: "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...."  Because my reading suggests strongly to me that people are not terribly sensitive to the flatness of the overall frequency response of a system when listening to music.  So a perceived audible improvement that people may assume is due to leveling frequency response via EQ/DSP might be fully or in part due to something else, like a sense of increased depth from a dispersive filter (which minimum and intermediate phase filters are), or any possible reverb-like effect in the audible range as a result of ultrasonic ringing.

 

I think you might find some interesting research by Floyd E. Toole on the subject of frequency response and even on resonances.

In my opinion and experience "flowing" (legato) music is more revealing of problems in frequency response. In other words, it depends on the music as well as the listener.

[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...

[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.

[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?

[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!

[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?

[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?

 

 

[semente]

1 minute ago, mmerrill99 said:

 

I wonder does this represent the majority? People who want measurements but really are not capable of deciding what the measurements mean?

 

What would be the benefit of such measurements if they are not something you can evaluate?

 

So lets say a set of measurements are made & posted. one side says they 'prove' the effectiveness of the device & the other side says it doesn't & that they want more definitive 'proof'. Where are you then at?

 

I'll tell you where you are at - exactly the same point as you are now at in this thread.

All this talk about measurements is just smoke & mirrors & people should examine their motivations & the scenario above to check their motivations in all of this, fiasco.

 

IF I am able to "understand" a measurement then I have no need for other people's interpretation.

I don't have any sinister pleasure in looking at measurements UNLESS I can read them.

[semente]

1 minute ago, mmerrill99 said:

Well, you didn't seem to understand what the eye pattern measurement signified or what it even was - so what measurements do you want to see (which you understand the meaning of) before you will "have a listen"?

 

I had seen the eye pattern before, in one of the previous topics about the Regen if I remember correctly, possibly originating from Pinkfishmedia.

I am curious about how the Regen can improve data transfer and consequently D/A performance.

Listening won't be of much use.

[semente]

4 minutes ago, mmerrill99 said:

Could you lend it to Semente - he's looking for a plaything!

 

Does it vibrate?

[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...

[semente]

1 minute ago, mmerrill99 said:

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

 

Care to elaborate?

[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.

[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.

[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".

[semente]

42 minutes ago, rickca said:

I agree.  It's like saying that Alzheimer's or schizophrenia doesn't exist because we don't understand the disease process and mechanism.  We may be characterizing it incorrectly, but it certainly is real.  We can't treat it effectively because we don't know how to measure it.

 

I see measurements as methods for the diagnose of shortcomings in audio equipment, just as for the diagnose of Alzheimer's you would probably use brain imaging.

 

 

In this case it looks as though some engineers, through an educated guess, are tackling potential problems in the USB connection but have yet to provide the measurements that can prove the existence of a disease and/or the effectiveness of the treatment.

 

R

[semente]

14 hours ago, rickca said:

Why not just use PM?  I don't care who you ignore.  I agree with what you said about not quoting an entire post.  This is the same idea, avoid thread clutter.

 

@The Computer Audiophile do you get a notification if someone puts you on ignore?  That would be a solution if it doesn't already work that way.

 

Because you'll get a lot more pleasure out of punishing someone in public...feel empowered.