Objective proof the UpTone Regen ISO can improve a DAC's output(*)

[internethandle]

4 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

So they can sell you this:  http://www.schiit.com/products/wyrd

 

That seems like an odd conclusion given that 

 

a) Schiit obviously would not agree their product measures poorly (or have an explanation for why it measures poorly with Amir's equipment), and so it follows they then would be unlikely to offer a product to fix a problem they don't believe or want people to believe exists.

 

b) Schiit claims nothing about actual improvements to sound via the Wyrd, or at least objectively believe it shouldn't be possible. It says so right on the product page. They do advertise that objectively it measures less noisily than a motherboard USB port. 

[internethandle]

Well you could reverse that question and ask why one SHOULD trust Amir. Isn't one of the functions of objectivism espousing the idea that one prove that something is true before asking that it be disproven? I could be totally mistaken, but I haven't seen any credentials from him other than retired tech executive with apparently a lot of cash to burn and (purportedly) an Audio Precision Analyzer. Other than that there's a paucity of information about who he is/might represent, what exact equipment and conditions he tests with/in, etc.

 

It's also bizarre that we're even having this conversation, given that the conclusion Amir reached with his output-only measurements of the ISO Regen's effect on various DAC's is that ISO Regen provides no additional benefit. That he found one solitary DAC where it had a measurable effect is nice, but I severely doubt Uptone is going to want to market their device as only measurably effective on Schiit Modi 2's, not that they'd necessarily need to (nor would Schiit likely let them). It's equally bizarre to me that a group of audio objectivists have concluded there are problems with products that tend to attract objectivists (if I recall correctly, Amir has also found fault with a Bifrost) due to their low prices/irreverent marketing and poo-pooing of audiophile "voodoo."  I can imagine Schiit objectivist acolytes demanding in turn that Amir and co. prove that such aberrations are even audible.

 

In terms of Schiit's response/why their DAC might be found to be behaving this way, I can only guess, but if I had to conjecture I'd say it would probably resemble something in Jason Stoddard's "Schiit Happened" chapter where he explicates measurements in general and specifically how Schiit employs them in designing and testing their own product, linked below:

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up.701900/page-467#post_11763661

 

Still, for all my apologism, I do find it a little suspect, and wonder if the problems that Schiit was finding with customers having dropouts etc. with their USB implementations in their various DAC's (which was one of the primary reasons they developed the Wyrd, by their own account) has more to do with their USB receiving designs' vulnerabilities to USB port noise than with the noisy ports themselves. Regardless, with Gen 5 USB/Eitr it seems like they've at least solved that issue for most of their DAC's, but noticeably not for Modi, at least internally to the DAC and not yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[internethandle]

Yes I suppose that's part of the issue - there's so few out there doing any sort of third-party measuring of audiophile gear that when one person pops up a large (maybe undue) amount of heed is given to their conclusions, which would be helped if there were more out there doing the same to the same equipment. It's going to be pretty hard to find a lot of people with an AP, although the units Jason himself mentions in the Schiit Happened chapter I linked above I suppose could be a starting point.  (edit: QuantAsylum is the manufacturer of said units)

 

And yes, I've always found Stereophile's measurements section partially so illuminating because they include a manufacturer comment/response. 

[internethandle]

Amir's brief autiobiography linked by esldude doesn't really give me much confidence in who he might be. Whenever someone provides a series of unverifiable claims about their identity that all read as highly impressive (he's read "all" the books and papers on DAC measurement, he introduced the use of AP analyzers to Sony, his work on signal processing at Microsoft touched "practically any product that plays audio"(? - he seems to mean with optical media here, but I'm not sure), his measurements "have been published in magazines and reviewed by countless people in the industry and research[sic]", etc.), it tends to perk my ears a bit. I think who he is would be less important if his work wasn't potentially effecting the livelihoods and reputations of what are often times small/boutique audio companies who deserve to know who they're up against.

[internethandle]

His Q.V. does appear to be fairly impressive if he is who he says he is and it would be quite an elaborate ruse if he isn't. Still, I suppose one could (and this seems to be the implied if not explicit position of most in the audiophile industry who have bothered to respond to his measurements) make the case that having worked on computer based audio standards and the like is not the same thing as having designed a piece of audio equipment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[internethandle]

I'm also having trouble reconciling his measuring jitter plots/distributions and correlating them with his son reporting having heard computer activity through his DAC, which Amir posits is through the shared PC ground (this is in his semi-veiled Bifrost measurements). Objectivists I've run into tend to claim that hearing computer activity through a DAC is impossible, or that jitter numbers outside of huge spikes are inconsequential. Or take Stoddard's comments about jitter numbers mattering most at the DAC's wordclock and not its output:

 

Quote

Jitter. Oh gawd, people love jitter. They just love, love, love it. They love to throw numbers like 0.2pS at the screen and talk about “femto” clocks and how their jitter is just the lowest possible number it can be. But there are several problems with this:

 
1. The number of individuals who can actually measure sub-pS jitter is very, very, very low—it requires a $30K instrument that does exactly one thing: measure jitter


2. “Femto” clocks—clocks with femtosecond level jitter—frequently only have femto performance at very high frequencies…and are dependent on layout, logic, power supplies, PCB noise, etc, etc…so they may not really mean anything

3. Most don’t measure jitter where it matters—at the word clock to the DAC—because the number will be higher than those sub-pS readings
 
We measure jitter on all our designs at the word clock with an interval analyzer. On the best designs, we can get down around single-digit pS numbers. On other designs, it may be 50+ pS. In either case, they’re not impressive when you’re comparing to 0.2pS. So we don’t publish those measurements. Nor do we publish our eye diagrams, jitter impairment tests, and jitter spectrums from the Stanfords…but a quick look at Yggy’s jitter specs, tested here independently, confirms exceptional performance.
 
- So, how hard is it to get great jitter numbers? I could be snarky and say, “Not hard if you make them up.” But, bottom line, very hard, especially when measured where it matters.
 
- What do we shoot for? 2-digit pS in non-Adapticlock products, single-digit pS in Adapticlock products, both measured at the word clock with an interval analyzer, and correlated with a benign jitter frequency distribution as measured on the Stanford.
 
- Does jitter correlate to audible differences? It shouldn’t. Modern numbers, even on some fairly terrible interfaces, really should be below the limit of audibility. We'll leave it at that.

 

How much of what Amir is measuring, in other words, should (objectively!) be audible? I'm asking these things mostly out of ignorance and/or genuine curiosity, so please don't take me for necessarily poking holes for the sake of doing so. 

[internethandle]

By "helps a Modi 2" we're still talking about something that should be below the threshold of audibility, correct? As in, the Modi 2's measured noisiness sans ISO Regen/USB Hub/etc. I still find this whole enterprise of measuring stuff very confusing in that regard. 

 

It does seem to me that Uptone  know their audience, and that audience (the ones who subjectively hear an improvement with the Regen/sundry accessories, or believe there's a problem to be fixed - namely, audiophiles) are extremely unlikely to be running extremely long USB cables that came with their printer. They're much more likely to either be using a) an audiophile USB cable b) a direct adapter as Uptone has recommended for some time or, at the least, c) a short run of a standard USB 2.0 compliant cable. Faulting them for sub-standard possible scenarios with respect to USB connection seems to me rather silly. It's like faulting a french press maker for not explicitly telling a customer their coffee will taste like crap when the customer decides to use Folgers with the press. I feel similarly about faulting them for (probably inaudible!) mains harmonics generated by the default SMPS, although I see the point of maybe beefing up the caveats on the marketing material to indicate just how sub-optimal of a solution that might be (or just not selling it).