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

[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.

[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?

[AJ Soundfield]

9 minutes ago, firedog said:

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

Where jitter level was directly correlated to the results?

I'm an AES member but not aware of such studies. Could you please provide a link?

In the studies that I have seen, listeners have been able to tolerate levels of jitter beyond anything found in "audio" devices, playing actual music. I would be very interested in what both you and Jud posited, though I'm unclear if the purported benefit of this audiophile widget is "better" sound via lower jitter?

[AJ Soundfield]

8 minutes ago, firedog said:

Don't remember the details, but isn't it known that listeners respond positively to the sound of some types of jitter?

I am not aware of any such study involving digital jitter.

Regarding timing based errors in analog systems like TT & tape wow & flutter, I am also unaware of any study showing more was preferred to less.

This is not the same as saying that analog media, with its inherently high timing based errors, is not enjoyable, or preferred over digital formats, with their inherently much lower errors. But this is not a case of isolated metric correlation, as there are many more factors involved.

I would still be quite interested in seeing the details of what Jud alluded to - controlled ears only tests of this widget, again, despite the fact that "lower jitter" may not be the purported benefit. The website seems to claim  less "noise".

 

cheers,

 

AJ

[AJ Soundfield]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

There's been a blind test in this forum where I, another member who is a working professional musician, and others selected tracks with more jitter as sounding more natural.  barrows, a forum member who worked at PS Audio, said in their in-house testing some people preferred designs with higher jitter measurements IIRC.

 

(I'll respond to your other question tomorrow morning as I don't have time just now.  But the listening test was nothing elaborate and done by only two people (I was one) so I am not trying to make greater claims for it than it deserves.)

Thanks Jud, you responded while I was typing, look forward to details.

[AJ Soundfield]

Forgive me for being a bit dense, but I'm still trying to envision a configuration for having this device in and out of the signal path between source/DAC (per manufacturer site) to allow rapid switching (assuming same voltage output from DAC).

Ideas welcome.

[AJ Soundfield]

9 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

The Bryston BDA3 has two USB inputs. It could be the perfect DAC for those seeking such rapid switching. 

Thank you, indeed that would be ideal. For rigor, the analog voltage outputs would still be checked for matching (switching between inputs), but Bryston usually feature high levels of engineering, so I would expect tolerances to be benign for listening tests.

[AJ Soundfield]

9 hours ago, plissken said:

 

In Windows, with a lot of sound cards, you can enable 'Stereo Mix' and output the same stream to two sound cards simultaneously. Feed both cards outputs into A/B inputs on a preamp and switch from there. 

Thanks P, so 2 usb ports on the same computer could be used simultaneously, one feeding the Regen, the other "straight" usb cable to the inputs of the DAC, like a Bryston.

This should suffice for the task at hand.

[AJ Soundfield]

57 minutes ago, Jud said:

Hi A J.  I've quoted above several of the previous responses in this thread where I described the listening test.  If you have questions, let me know.

Thanks Jud and yes, questions because I'm confused ;-).

It appears you tested 2 widgets from the manufacturer vs each other? Was one supposed to be a "straight wire" akin to a USB cable?

My hope was to see a test of the device for what it is claimed to do. That would entail what is described in my posts above, i.e. the Regen vs no Regen.

Unless I misread, your test was not that at all?

[AJ Soundfield]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I'm gonna predict you're not going to hear a difference with rapid switching.  Of course I could be wrong and surprised.

 

The reason has something to do with this: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/22709-heres-a-little-test-you-can-all-join-in/#comment-390666

 

The links to the test files themselves don't work any longer.  I apologize for that, and for directing you to the link rather than providing a longer more detailed answer - that'll have to wait until I have some time.  And I'd also like to provide you (and everyone else) with statistical info about the results of the "little test" I linked to.

So you did not do a blind test for the efficacy of this device. Further, you predict there is none, or that the standard discrimination methods are either insufficient or incorrect? It's hard to say based on what you are linking, as I see no correlation to the subject.

Is this a case of the "effect" needing longer gestation to manifest? Or perhaps no control impediments? As you are probably aware, there are really no time limits on blind switching. One could listen for days to A, then switch to B etc.

Of course, if controls are the impediment, we need not be talking about free of bias testing, etc.

Thanks for you info.

 

cheers,

 

AJ

[AJ Soundfield]

3 minutes ago, Jud said:

So all that was established is that two testers independently and very quickly felt one box resulted in much better sound from our systems than the other box.  This, it seems to me, goes to the question (with as much credence as a two-person test deserves) of whether the ISO Regen makes an audible difference.

Sorry, I type very slowly (with cat sleeping on one arm)  so cross posts.

No, your described test was only one widget vs the other. It is unrelated to the manufacturers claim of the device inserted between a usb out and DAC in, in lieu of a mere usb cable.

[AJ Soundfield]

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

[AJ Soundfield]

14 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I'm sure you're aware of the transience of echoic memory, right?  That's the reason for rapid switching.

Yes, acutely. I was simply probing possible reasons why you thought this (quick switch) type of audible difference test would show none for this device, as you predict.

So now I'm even more confused about you position for the efficacy of claims for this device.

Inserted as instructed by manufacturer between usb port and DAC, does it work audibly as claimed, or not?

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....

I don't see any ambiguity there...

[AJ Soundfield]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

the null hypothesis that neither box (G & M) does anything audible is true?

Who made this claim?

 

That has no relevance to whether the Regen makes a difference vs a usb cable, per manufacturer website et al.

That is what I believe my dear friend Amir is trying first to ascertain via measurements, in lieu of valid listening tests, which I presume he figures will not materialize.

You yourself just stated you predict there would be no audible difference detected in a valid/controlled (quick switch) listening test.

New here, so forgive me, but perhaps you widget G vs M befits it's own dedicated thread for whatever it was to ascertain??

[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.

[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.

[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.

 

[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...

[AJ Soundfield]

16 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

On what would the bias be based under these circumstances (two identical looking boxes differing only in the black magic marker letter appearing on the blue painter's tape on each)?

I said there were no details of the bias suppression/test methods. You could be biased by just the lettering.

That isn't the point. You stated the tests were "unbiased". I asked, via what methods? How many trials, etc, etc.

IOW, details critical to "unbiased", valid listening tests.

[AJ Soundfield]

10 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

The null hypothesis I'm looking at is that the ISO Regen doesn't affect the analog output (i.e., the music) at all...  

...vs a "straight" usb cable, the normal connection method from usb out to DAC usb in.

You did no such test or test of hypothesis.

You listened to 2 widgets and preferred one to the other. This has no bearing on Regen vs usb cable.

Further, you predict no audible difference in an ears only/quick switch test, which is the minimum standard for such perceptual testing.

It is safe to say no objective reason has been establish for/against this device.

That does not mean some audiophile should/not buy it. To the contrary as I wrote.

My curiosity stems purely from objective reasoning for the DUT. I think I'm all good here.

I appreciate your calm contribution.

[AJ Soundfield]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I did, and liked the ISO Regen much better, but that was not blinded in any way, thus subject to potential non-random bias in favor of the ISO Regen.

Ok, thanks. That concludes it for me here regarding existence of objective data for this device.

[AJ Soundfield]

40 minutes ago, jtwrace said:

Has he shown any measurements of his stuff?

He has no clue what or how to measure. A 70+ yr old ex-Chemist iirc.

The perfect audiophile designer. No clue about measuring "it".

But "it" got designed, engineered and manufactured into the widget.