SQ or SNAKEOIL

[Superdad]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

Yes, analogue interconnects. I could of course measure the bit error rates of a few USB cables, but as they'd all be zero, what would be the point?

 

Or you could do as some of the magazines do and run and eye-pattern test on them.  You would see dramatic variation in signal integrity.  Jitter, amplitude, rise times, etc.

 

Sorry to see that some here still believe that the PHY chip/processors in DACs (which often share the same power supply and ground domain as the sensitive master clock) are perfectly immune to input variation.  They simply are not.  Both our REGENs (and similar competitive devices) and the entire realm of upstream variables (cables, computer tweaks, endpoint renderers, power supplies, etc.) have proven it thousands of times in user systems.

It is rather sad that a vocal minority—comprised of some smart people who, if they chose to, could put inquisitive effort in understanding what really is happening electrically—continues to dig in to positions that don’t match reality.

 

I know some are waiting for incontrovertible proof in the form of measurement graphs before you will believe what thousands readily hear.  We certainly would like to be among the first to provide that.  To that end, John Swenson has been working on (intermittently so as not to impact product engineering) a sophisticated system to inject an specific jitter marker upstream—and to then spot it in the analog output of the DAC. Once that is shown, then various forms of isolation can be shown to be more or less effective.

—————

 

As for Mansr’s ongoing insinuations that UpTone Audio unknowingly defrauds its customers:

Well I’ll skip the few choice words that come to mind and simply remind everyone that out products are sold with a 30-day money-back guarantee.  With products that sell in the low thousands, when you can count on the fingers of two hands the number of returns...

 

[mansr]

2 hours ago, Superdad said:

Or you could do as some of the magazines do and run and eye-pattern test on them.  You would see dramatic variation in signal integrity.  Jitter, amplitude, rise times, etc.

Uninteresting.

 

2 hours ago, Superdad said:

As for Mansr’s ongoing insinuations that UpTone Audio unknowingly defrauds its customers:

You're selling a product admitting you can't show it has the claimed effect. As I said earlier, I believe you really do believe it works. Thus, if it doesn't actually work, which until proven otherwise is a possibility, you're not intentionally defrauding anyone. Selling something based on a hunch alone might be considered reckless (and buying it foolish), but fraud it is not.

[beerandmusic]

29 minutes ago, mansr said:

Uninteresting.

 

You're selling a product admitting you can't show it has the claimed effect. As I said earlier, I believe you really do believe it works. Thus, if it doesn't actually work, which until proven otherwise is a possibility, you're not intentionally defrauding anyone. Selling something based on a hunch alone might be considered reckless (and buying it foolish), but fraud it is not.

 

wow....and i thought some may consider me rude by suggesting DSD vs PCM only dacs or that I question one enet superiority over another...but This is pretty blunt and borders being downright rude.

 

I have always thought the usb toys work, i just felt the circuitry should be built into the DAC.

 

Honestly curious if you have ever tried better clocks, better ps, or any noise reduction circuitry to see if it improved the SQ?

 

 

[Archimago]

5 hours ago, Superdad said:

...

Sorry to see that some here still believe that the PHY chip/processors in DACs (which often share the same power supply and ground domain as the sensitive master clock) are perfectly immune to input variation.  They simply are not.  Both our REGENs (and similar competitive devices) and the entire realm of upstream variables (cables, computer tweaks, endpoint renderers, power supplies, etc.) have proven it thousands of times in user systems.

It is rather sad that a vocal minority—comprised of some smart people who, if they chose to, could put inquisitive effort in understanding what really is happening electrically—continues to dig in to positions that don’t match reality.

 

I know some are waiting for incontrovertible proof in the form of measurement graphs before you will believe what thousands readily hear.  We certainly would like to be among the first to provide that.  To that end, John Swenson has been working on (intermittently so as not to impact product engineering) a sophisticated system to inject an specific jitter marker upstream—and to then spot it in the analog output of the DAC. Once that is shown, then various forms of isolation can be shown to be more or less effective.

...

 

 

Interesting response.

 

Sure, thousands of people could find the device beneficial, no arguments. Thousands even millions of people also find things I personally find questionable to be beneficial also (eg. various religious beliefs, homeopathy, various alternative treatments...). People are free to purchase and believe what they see fit.

 

I'm more interested in the logical arguments and how this "works". Regarding those 2 paragraphs quoted above and John Swenson "working on" "intermittently" the system to inject jitter markers, etc... I really wonder whether this is how engineering a product is done. Presumably, one does not make a device, sell it, then in retrospect come up with the measurements looking for "incontrovertible proof", right?

 

In preparing to produce a product that ostensibly fixes/improves various issues like noise and jitter, should it not be more like:

 

1. We have a hypothesis about noise and jitter among USB chipsets, we believe some PHY devices are better than others.

2. The engineer (John) then *measures* to show that noise and jitter are different between different chip sets, thus we can try to improve things.

3. The engineer then wants to link such differences in the USB devices to sound quality from USB DACs. So he takes his "standard" USB DAC and *measures* or at least uses *controlled listening tests* to check that there is in fact correlation.

4. Once that correlation is made, she/he then selects the best USB "hub" chipset, and builds the lowest noise and jitter prototypes to experiment with the best possible design (at the target price point, etc.).

5. He/she then verifies this/these prototype(s) by *measuring* and/or do controlled listening to ensure that the design achieves the electrical and temporal characteristics the engineer had set out to accomplish - ie. lowest noise and jitter.

6. Finalizing design... Deciding on manufacturing... Advertising... Selling...

 

Assuming the actual product engineering and design cycle is anything like the above (please correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions), surely there must be multiple points where measurements and tests were done with some conclusions drawn to show value in the design. Surely there is something objective/concrete to show, right?

 

My understanding is that the USB REGEN has been available since 2015. We are now something like 3 years down the road and I see you've mentioned different versions of the product as well. Is there truly nothing your company / John Swenson can show at this point to demonstrate what effect the device has on whatever USB DAC John might have used to verify that his design works? (Yes, I have already read your website's FAQ and "Swenson Explains" from 2015 to 2016 - but this is still rather hypothetical without demonstration / evidence that these ideas are true or the device accomplishes what it claims.)

 

BTW: I did a quick search on measurements and found these articles on the REGEN:

Stereophile 2015 - no measurable difference

Audio Science Review 2017 - no measurable difference using Mytek Brooklyn DAC

What's Best Forum 2015 - unclear, DAC performance could be helped as well as hindered

[beerandmusic]

7 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Interesting response.

 

Sure, thousands of people could find the device beneficial, no arguments. Thousands even millions of people also find things I personally find questionable to be beneficial also (eg. various religious beliefs, homeopathy, various alternative treatments...). People are free to purchase and believe what they see fit.

 

I'm more interested in the logical arguments and how this "works". Regarding those 2 paragraphs quoted above and John Swenson "working on" "intermittently" the system to inject jitter markers, etc... I really wonder whether this is how engineering a product is done. Presumably, one does not make a device, sell it, then in retrospect come up with the measurements looking for "incontrovertible proof", right?

 

In preparing to produce a product that ostensibly fixes/improves various issues like noise and jitter, should it not be more like:

 

1. We have a hypothesis about noise and jitter among USB chipsets, we believe some PHY devices are better than others.

2. The engineer (John) then *measures* to show that noise and jitter are different between different chip sets, thus we can try to improve things.

3. The engineer then wants to link such differences in the USB devices to sound quality from USB DACs. So he takes his "standard" USB DAC and *measures* or at least uses *controlled listening tests* to check that there is in fact correlation.

4. Once that correlation is made, she/he then selects the best USB "hub" chipset, and builds the lowest noise and jitter prototypes to experiment with the best possible design (at the target price point, etc.).

5. He/she then verifies this/these prototype(s) by *measuring* and/or do controlled listening to ensure that the design achieves the electrical and temporal characteristics the engineer had set out to accomplish - ie. lowest noise and jitter.

6. Finalizing design... Deciding on manufacturing... Advertising... Selling...

 

Assuming the actual product engineering and design cycle is anything like the above (please correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions), surely there must be multiple points where measurements and tests were done with some conclusions drawn to show value in the design. Surely there is something objective/concrete to show, right?

 

My understanding is that the USB REGEN has been available since 2015. We are now something like 3 years down the road and I see you've mentioned different versions of the product as well. Is there truly nothing your company / John Swenson can show at this point to demonstrate what effect the device has on whatever USB DAC John might have used to verify that his design works? (Yes, I have already read your website's FAQ and "Swenson Explains" from 2015 to 2016 - but this is still rather hypothetical without demonstration / evidence that these ideas are true or the device accomplishes what it claims.)

 

BTW: I did a quick search on measurements and found these articles on the REGEN:

Stereophile 2015 - no measurable difference

Audio Science Review 2017 - no measurable difference using Mytek Brooklyn DAC

What's Best Forum 2015 - unclear, DAC performance could be helped as well as hindered

 

i have read your blog on more than one occasion and revisit with enthusiasm from time to time.  I even quoted you about the SMSL dsd device here first.  I believe that I am objectivist first, but also believe that some things just aren't measurable.  I believe that human ears are beyond man's approach to properly measure capability...especially inre depth and 3d characteristics.

Regardless of any of that, what my curiosity is, how do you feel about the IFI micro usb 3.0?  Do they offer measurements that "prove" their worthiness, or are they just as absurd as the products you fault here?

[Archimago]

23 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

i have read your blog on more than one occasion and revisit with enthusiasm from time to time.  I even quoted you about the SMSL dsd device here first.  I believe that I am objectivist first, but also believe that some things just aren't measurable.  I believe that human ears are beyond man's approach to properly measure capability...especially inre depth and 3d characteristics.

Regardless of any of that, what my curiosity is, how do you feel about the IFI micro usb 3.0?  Do they offer measurements that "prove" their worthiness, or are they just as absurd as the products you fault here?

 

Greetings B&M,

To be honest, I've never tried the iFi Micro USB 3.0 so I really don't have anything to say about that. Maybe if I ran into one, I'll give it a try or see if measurements show a change.

 

Notice the comment I made. Admittedly, I am skeptical, but actually not directly "faulting" the REGEN other than showing that objective results done by others have not found anything clearly pointing to an improvement. Likewise, I'm fine with people believing/buying whatever they want.

 

Rather, I am curious about the basis of which the determination was made that it improves noise and jitter. These are properties which can be measured. Furthermore, to determine if improvement in these properties result in better sound, it would be nice to know if there were measurements to link the output between the REGEN's USB and the DAC. As an engineer, I assume John Swenson must have employed a methodical process (as I listed in my message wondering if this is what he did).

 

You might recall that years ago (May 2015) I was able to measure the 8kHz USB PHY noise  through my sensitive pre-amp passthrough with different USB hubs. So I can concur that some USB hubs are (slightly) more noisy than others. If I can do this, would UpTone not also be able to show us what the REGEN is capable of compared to say another USB hub device that doesn't clean the signal? Or demonstrate in what way the jitter is attenuated? Remember, it has been 3 years!

 

[beerandmusic]

14 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Greetings B&M,

To be honest, I've never tried the iFi Micro USB 3.0 so I really don't have anything to say about that. Maybe if I ran into one, I'll give it a try or see if measurements show a change.

 

Notice the comment I made. Admittedly, I am skeptical, but actually not directly "faulting" the REGEN other than showing that objective results done by others have not found anything clearly pointing to an improvement. Likewise, I'm fine with people believing/buying whatever they want.

 

Rather, I am curious about the basis of which the determination was made that it improves noise and jitter. These are properties which can be measured. Furthermore, to determine if improvement in these properties result in better sound, it would be nice to know if there were measurements to link the output between the REGEN's USB and the DAC. As an engineer, I assume John Swenson must have employed a methodical process (as I listed in my message wondering if this is what he did).

 

You might recall that years ago (May 2015) I was able to measure the 8kHz USB PHY noise  through my sensitive pre-amp passthrough with different USB hubs. So I can concur that some USB hubs are (slightly) more noisy than others. If I can do this, would UpTone not also be able to show us what the REGEN is capable of compared to say another USB hub device that doesn't clean the signal? Or demonstrate in what way the jitter is attenuated? Remember, it has been 3 years!

 

 

The main reason i question the ifi micro usb3.0 is because there was a long running thread here that actually rated the "usb toys" as to SQ, that many seemed to agree with "subjectively", and the ifi micro usb3.0 came on top of the "rating scale" as best improvement in SQ.  I am  not sure of the effectiveness of these type of products if the "modern" dacs have marketed "jitter reduction and usb isolation" circuitry.  It is unclear to me how a usb toy "can" improve if the dac has that type of circuitry....

 

If i were to buy any of these "usb toys", it would likely be the ifi....but it has been my long standing stance that if any of this circuitry does truly improve the SQ, that it should be incorporated in the dac itself....and it seems that many dacs have taken steps in that direction (e.g. better clocks, reclocking, isolation, better power) over the past few years.

 

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2016/08/musings-do-audiophile-computer-based.html

 

 

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, Archimago said:

I really wonder whether this is how engineering a product is done. Presumably, one does not make a device, sell it, then in retrospect come up with the measurements looking for "incontrovertible proof", right?

 

 FFS !

Uptone had only just started up and had limited time and available financial resources to do what you, mansr,Plissken,  esldude etc.  would want done.

 My understanding , is that as Uptone became more financially stable, that Alex C purchased quite a deal of test gear for John and continues to do so.

You also fail to take into account the fact that at the time,  John was doing all this R & D on evenings and weekends, as he had a full time day job back then.

[Archimago]

8 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

The main reason i question the ifi micro usb3.0 is because there was a long running thread here that actually rated the "usb toys" as to SQ, that many seemed to agree with "subjectively", and the ifi micro usb3.0 came on top of the "rating scale" as best improvement in SQ.  I am  not sure of the effectiveness of these type of products if the "modern" dacs have marketed "jitter reduction and usb isolation" circuitry.  It is unclear to me how a usb toy "can" improve if the dac has that type of circuitry....

 

If i were to buy any of these "usb toys", it would likely be the ifi....but it has been my long standing stance that if any of this circuitry does truly improve the SQ, that it should be incorporated in the dac itself....and it seems that many dacs have taken steps in that direction (e.g. better clocks, reclocking, isolation, better power) over the past few years.

 

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2016/08/musings-do-audiophile-computer-based.html

 

 

 

Okay, if I buy one of these devices, then I will certainly give the iFi micro USB 3.0 a listen and a look.

 

IMO, these devices are superfluous. If I bought a $1000 DAC (never mind a $2000+ one), I would expect that the designer of this device would have thought about noise and jitter, otherwise they didn't do their job! Noise level and jitter suppression are core features of an asynchronous USB DAC. It's like buying a car that is advertised to run "really, really fast" but after the purchase, you realize it only ran "really fast" and you now "should" add something 1/10th the price to achieve that "really, really fast" expectation. I suspect if you talked to the DAC engineer/manufacturer, they'd probably be a bit insulted that their device required such an addition!

 

Note that in that post you linked, I did not even use the word "toy". I still think John Swenson's posts are "empty, impressionistic chatter" that do not contain any "real answers" though.

 

Over the years, I have heard of people buying these devices based on all kinds of positive word of mouth. A few months later, maybe a year later, they end up in a drawer somewhere... Yes, like a forgotten "toy" bought at a price point that allow some of them to be relatively disposable (I'm thinking of the Jitterbug especially).

 

7 hours ago, sandyk said:

 FFS !

Uptone had only just started up and had limited time and available financial resources to do what you, mansr,Plissken,  esldude etc.  would want done.

 My understanding , is that as Uptone became more financially stable, that Alex C purchased quite a deal of test gear for John and continues to do so.

You also fail to take into account the fact that at the time,  John was doing all this R & D on evenings and weekends, as he had a full time day job back then.

 

Of course I understand the issue with financial resources. I do hope they eventually design the best test they can to show incontrovertible results. But as part of the research & design effort years ago in conceiving the device and verification of its value, surely there must have been *some* measurements done! So what if the testing was done at night and on weekends... If there are no objective correlates, then I'd like to know if it was based just on John Swenson's listening which would be just as interesting to be mindful of and ask about that.

 

Remember, on the website the REGEN is advertised as being able to "cure" the "packet noise modulation" and "ground-plane noise" that affect DAC playback, resulting in something like "listening to a different DAC" when this device is attached. These are significant claims couched in the language of engineering which are defined and have physical or temporal characteristics that can be empirically demonstrated.

 

At the very least, since we obviously can measure and show that different DACs perform differently, show us a single instance where the DAC output changed to the point where it seemed to be a "different DAC". That should not require remarkably expensive measurement gear!

[Summit]

37 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Okay, if I buy one of these devices, then I will certainly give the iFi micro USB 3.0 a listen and a look.

 

IMO, these devices are superfluous. If I bought a $1000 DAC (never mind a $2000+ one), I would expect that the designer of this device would have thought about noise and jitter, otherwise they didn't do their job! Noise level and jitter suppression are core features of an asynchronous USB DAC. It's like buying a car that is advertised to run "really, really fast" but after the purchase, you realize it only ran "really fast" and you now "should" add something 1/10th the price to achieve that "really, really fast" expectation. I suspect if you talked to the DAC engineer/manufacturer, they'd probably be a bit insulted that their device required such an addition!

 

 

Yes wouldn’t it be wonderful if DACs was truly immune to all kind of noise and timing errors and nothing up stream of the DAC made any difference?

 

Wouldn’t it be even greater if speakers was immune to the quality of all upstream gear and also the room?

 

Until that happens hallelujah, I will continue to use my upstream gear that I consider have a positive effect on SQ and that makes me enjoy listening to music.

[mansr]

36 minutes ago, Archimago said:

It's like buying a car that is advertised to run "really, really fast" but after the purchase, you realize it only ran "really fast" and you now "should" add something 1/10th the price to achieve that "really, really fast" expectation.

Racing stripes!

 

37 minutes ago, Archimago said:

I still think John Swenson's posts are "empty, impressionistic chatter" that do not contain any "real answers" though.

That's a splendid characterisation of his "insights."

 

38 minutes ago, Archimago said:

At the very least, since we obviously can measure and show that different DACs perform differently, show us a single instance where the DAC output changed to the point where it seemed to be a "different DAC". That should not require remarkably expensive measurement gear!

All those excuses are just the technobabble equivalent of "your system isn't resolving enough."

[Archimago]

43 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

Yes wouldn’t it be wonderful if DACs was truly immune to all kind of noise and timing errors and nothing up stream of the DAC made any difference?

 

Wouldn’t it be even greater if speakers was immune to the quality of all upstream gear and also the room?

 

Until that happens hallelujah, I will continue to use my upstream gear that I consider have a positive effect on SQ and that makes me enjoy listening to music.

 

Well then Summit,

Why doesn't UpTone show us the goods! Specifically, about DACs I cannot hear a problem, and I have looked for objective anomalies (although not at the REGEN specifically which is why I'm asking). I'm not saying that there could not be some issue with noise or timing in egregious examples when the device is fed from a poor computer/digital source. But where are those examples even?

 

Remember, we're talking about noise (you know -  8kHz for one!) and jitter. Not quantum tunneling, not relativistic time distortion, and not even jitter with gigahertz transmissions! Just one example would be nice.

 

If not even a single example especially using reasonably decent gear can be shown for noise and/or jitter, then maybe we all should be rejoicing in hallelujah!

[Archimago]

37 minutes ago, mansr said:

...

All those excuses are just the technobabble equivalent of "your system isn't resolving enough."

 

At the end of the day, it would be truly shameful if this is all that it amounts to...

 

[Summit]

33 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Well then Summit,

Why doesn't UpTone show us the goods! Specifically, about DACs I cannot hear a problem, and I have looked for objective anomalies (although not at the REGEN specifically which is why I'm asking). I'm not saying that there could not be some issue with noise or timing in egregious examples when the device is fed from a poor computer/digital source. But where are those examples even?

 

Remember, we're talking about noise (you know -  8kHz for one!) and jitter. Not quantum tunneling, not relativistic time distortion, and not even jitter with gigahertz transmissions! Just one example would be nice.

 

If not even a single example especially using reasonably decent gear can be shown for noise and/or jitter, then maybe we all should be rejoicing in hallelujah!

 

I don’t work for UpTone and cannot answer your question about measurements. I think that you can look up some of their used components if you want, some of them have been measured, I believe.  

 

If I thought that nothing upstream of the DAC made any difference I would not spend any time on a forum like Computer audiophile. From your reply I get that you reject that any upstream gear can have any SQ effect. Sorry that’s just too far from my own experience for me to really care about what you think.

 

I will continue to use those upstream gear that I consider have a positive effect on SQ and that makes me enjoy listening to music, no matter if you can hear or measure the effect or not.

[davide256]

 

 

11 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

The main reason i question the ifi micro usb3.0 is because there was a long running thread here that actually rated the "usb toys" as to SQ, that many seemed to agree with "subjectively", and the ifi micro usb3.0 came on top of the "rating scale" as best improvement in SQ.  I am  not sure of the effectiveness of these type of products if the "modern" dacs have marketed "jitter reduction and usb isolation" circuitry.  It is unclear to me how a usb toy "can" improve if the dac has that type of circuitry....

 

If i were to buy any of these "usb toys", it would likely be the ifi....but it has been my long standing stance that if any of this circuitry does truly improve the SQ, that it should be incorporated in the dac itself....and it seems that many dacs have taken steps in that direction (e.g. better clocks, reclocking, isolation, better power) over the past few years.

 

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2016/08/musings-do-audiophile-computer-based.html

 

 

I'm not a fan of fixing a problem after its been created rather than preventing it in the first place. Most of the tactics you described mitigate source issues which you are asking the DAC to bandaid after source signal generation. I'd much rather buy  a source processor endpoint  to feed the DAC where stringent attention has been paid to software/firmware, power supply, board electrical noise reduction under  production processing load to insure extreme resolution. Get that right and you shouldn't need bandaids for source signal at the DAC end

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

At the very least, since we obviously can measure and show that different DACs perform differently, show us a single instance where the DAC output changed to the point where it seemed to be a "different DAC". That should not require remarkably expensive measurement gear!

 

I hope that you are not pushing the usual BS ,that provided the 1s and 0s exported via the USB port are the same, the output from the DAC must sound the same ?

 I am easily able to demonstrate to others, even under non sighted listening conditions , that at least in my situation when I power the Uptone Regen using a +9V Linear PSU, or a 12V Li Ion battery derived PSU,(even better)  combined with a DIY USB-A to USB-B adaptor which doesn't have the +5V from the PC or the shield connected through, that with good material, it often sounds like a different mastering via the Uptone USB Regen after saving to USB memory and playing from the same USB memory.

This is with both directly from my PC via Coax SPDIF to a highly modified Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 and Class A H.A. ,and plugging the same set up into an Oppo 103's front USB port.

In fact, if I have the same music saved to the USB memory stick without the Regen, and the same bit identical music saved via the Regen, and play both via the same setup with the Oppo 103, the music saved via the Regen sounds markedly better.

I have also demonstrated the same at a friend's place using an Oppo 105.

It seems highly likely that if previous measurements using the supplied SMPS were repeated, but with the 0 volts of the SMPS PSU earthed, as John has more recently recommended, that the measurements would be noticeably improved.

[Archimago]

42 minutes ago, Summit said:

 

I don’t work for UpTone and cannot answer your question about measurements. I think that you can look up some of their used components if you want, some of them have been measured, I believe.  

 

If I thought that nothing upstream of the DAC made any difference I would not spend any time on a forum like Computer audiophile. From your reply I get that you reject that any upstream gear can have any SQ effect. Sorry that’s just too far from my own experience for me to really care about what you think.

 

I will continue to use those upstream gear that I consider have a positive effect on SQ and that makes me enjoy listening to music, no matter if you can hear or measure the effect or not.

 

Right, which is why my response was to @Superdad who is the owner of UpTone to ask about the engineering cycle and whether data was collected to verify that the design achieved the intended goals. As I noted in that post, I linked 3 tests done by others without evidence of clear improvement and one of them wondered if the output actually was worse with the device with subjective impressions reported even.

 

That's fine, you or I can be free to believe whether devices upstream make a difference or not. Whether I believe it makes a difference or not doesn't disqualify a visit to the forum either way! In the discussions here, if there is evidence that allows me to re-evaluate my position, I would welcome that. For example, if UpTone produced some evidence that noise/jitter got better with their device, or the discussions seemed to point to some good reasons it would make a difference, I would certainly be interested in having it on my radar when thinking about an upgrade! For now, I don't think it would be worth my time and money given the lack of a plausible rationale...

 

I likewise do not have any concerns whether you accept my position or not. My stance is simply that these are engineered devices. Especially something like a USB hub which is actually "borrowed" technology created by computer engineers and now said to be made special for audio data transmission purposes. In this context, I hope discussions can be directed to UpTone simply on the level of their engineering and verification process. IMO, these are not matters of faith. What you or I personally believe do not need to figure into this.

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, mansr said:

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

I still think John Swenson's posts are "empty, impressionistic chatter" that do not contain any "real answers" though.

That's a splendid characterisation of his "insights." - mansr

 

Yet more cases of " Penis Size Envy " ?

Please show us all how you can both do better to address the well documented problems with USB Audio !

Please do not spout the usual BS that the reported problems do not exist.

[Ralf11]

Noise level and jitter suppression are core features of an asynchronous USB DAC and should be dealt with in the DAC.  Maybe these issues were not widely recognized a few years ago?

 

or maybe only an expensive DAC can deal with these problems?

 

but Uptone has a return policy, doesn't it?  try it and see

 

I'd be very interested  in seeing blind testing w/ & w/o Uptoney stuff on various different DACs at Different price levels...

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Yet more cases of " Penis Size Envy " ?

Please show us all how you can both do better to address the well documented problems with USB Audio !

Sandy - Your posts are inappropriate and have been reported several times lately. Either clean it up or you'll be banned. 

[Archimago]

7 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

I hope that you are not pushing the usual BS ,that provided the 1s and 0s exported via the USB port are the same, the output from the DAC must sound the same ?

 I am easily able to demonstrate to others, even under non sighted listening conditions , that at least in my situation when I power the Uptone Regen using a +9V Linear PSU, or a 12V Li Ion battery derived PSU,(even better)  combined with a DIY USB-A to USB-B adaptor which doesn't have the +5V from the PC or the shield connected through, that with good material, it often sounds like a different mastering via the Uptone USB Regen after saving to USB memory and playing from the same USB memory.

This is with both directly from my PC via Coax SPDIF to a highly modified Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 and Class A H.A. ,and plugging the same set up into an Oppo 103's front USB port.

In fact, if I have the same music saved to the USB memory stick without the Regen, and the same bit identical music saved via the Regen, and play both via the same setup with the Oppo 103, the music saved via the Regen sounds markedly better.

I have also demonstrated the same at a friend's place using an Oppo 105.

It seems highly likely that if previous measurements using the supplied SMPS were repeated, but with the 0 volts of the SMPS PSU earthed, as John has more recently recommended, that the measurements would be noticeably improved.

 

Sure, very nice equipment sandyk.

 

Regarding the last part:

"It seems highly likely that if previous measurements using the supplied SMPS were repeated, but with the 0 volts of the SMPS PSU earthed, as John has more recently recommended, that the measurements would be noticeably improved."

 

So let's do it! Heck John should be able to do this test and show us the results to demonstrate the superiority of this recommendation...

 

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Noise level and jitter suppression are core features of an asynchronous USB DAC and should be dealt with in the DAC.  Maybe these issues were not widely recognized a few years ago?

 

or maybe only an expensive DAC can deal with these problems?

 

but Uptone has a return policy, doesn't it?  try it and see

 

I'd be very interested  in seeing blind testing w/ & w/o Uptoney stuff on various different DACs at Different price levels...

 

Finally, something we both can agree on !

[Archimago]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Yet more cases of " Penis Size Envy " ?

Please show us all how you can both do better to address the well documented problems with USB Audio !

Please do not spout the usual BS that the reported problems do not exist.

 

Look sandyk,

I don't get offended easily these days so am not... But just to say that was rather uncalled for.

 

Please show me the "documented problems with USB Audio". Happy to look into this...

 

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, Archimago said:

So let's do it! Heck John should be able to do this test and show us the results to demonstrate the superiority of this recommendation...

 

 So you are now claiming that these measurements will either prove, or disprove what thousands of people worldwide have reported ? Irrespective,. people listen with their ears, not test equipment.

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, Archimago said:

Look sandyk,

I don't get offended easily these days so am not... But just to say that was rather uncalled for.

 

Yes, I shouldn't have said the first part, for which I apologise, but I am heartily sick, tired  and fed up with uncalled for remarks like these from people like yourself, Mansr and others about fellow professionals , and I feel certain that I am far from the only member (temporary?) who feels this way too.

This includes  similar types of comments about well respected people such as Gordon Rankin.

 

Do other forums permit these kinds of remarks about the professionalism of other members ?