SQ or SNAKEOIL

[Archimago]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

 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.

 

All I'm saying is - by the thousands and millions even - people believe all kinds of things and can claim all kinds of things that might not be true. So long as this doesn't break some laws, I'm fine with this...

 

All I'm saying is that a USB hub has characteristics that can be demonstrated and that a technology company (UpTone) should be able to explain the process they used to verify the improvements made.

 

Yes, people use their ears. But the product description was about "packet noise modulation", "ground plane noise", furthermore "poor signal integrity and impedance mismatching" being a problem and that the "REGEN is the cure".

 

Not sure why the company could not come up with something in 3 years.

[Ralf11]

38 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Finally, something we both can agree on !

 

I always agree with you when you're right

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, Archimago said:

Not sure why the company could not come up with something in 3 years.

 Perhaps such a small company has other more pressing priorities, such as first becoming financially secure by rapidly designing and putting to market other products while they are in the public spotlight ?

They need to do this in order to expand and employ more people.

I am disappointed to see the spotlight is being kept by people like yourself on  Uptone, when they are now just one of many companies with very small staff numbers, sometimes " one man  bands", putting similar accessories to market.

[Archimago]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

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 ?

 

Apology accepted.

 

Hang on man, what "uncalled for remarks"? Why is stating the obvious about the product development cycle and asking for some information after 3 years inappropriate!? Besides, the original comment was a response to @Superdad. Thus far I have seen no response.

[Ralf11]

Arch,  the alleged the "documented problems with USB Audio" are noise currents being delivered to the DAC

[Archimago]

4 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Perhaps such a small company has other more pressing priorities, such as first becoming financially secure by rapidly designing and putting to market other products while they are in the public spotlight ?

They need to do this in order to expand and employ more people.

I am disappointed to see the spotlight is being kept by people like yourself on  Uptone, when they are now just one of many companies with very small staff numbers, sometimes " one man  bands", putting similar accessories to market.

 

Yes, small company, few workers... I just don't think I'm asking for much. Putting a few screen shots up or showing some reduction of noise would be nice.

[sandyk]

47 minutes ago, sandyk said:

2 hours ago, mansr said:

3 hours ago, Archimago said:

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

 

  We need to remember here , that John is posting in an Audiophile forum, where the vast majority of members do not come from technical backgrounds. They are mainly people seeking ways to further improve their musical experiences.

What you are asking for is the level of explanations, measurements and other proof required by Professional Associations, or perhaps even Hydrogen Audio.

[Ralf11]

so my question is how they came to design their initial product(s)

 

- if they had no theoretical or measurement background to guide them

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, Archimago said:

 

Yes, small company, few workers... I just don't think I'm asking for much. Putting a few screen shots up or showing some reduction of noise would be nice.

 Coming from a technical background as a retired Principal Telecommunications Technical Officer with Telstra , and a DIY person for >60 years, I like to see this too, but there are only so many hours in a day for a small start up company until they reach their full potential with expanded product lines. Also., my understanding is that John isn't exclusively designing for Uptone, so has even less available time to do these things when he needs to secure his future after a recent redundancy.

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

so my question is how they came to design their initial product(s)

 

- if they had no theoretical or measurement background to guide them

In John Swenson's case It's called EXPERIENCE !  John is a qualified E.E. with wide Industry experience.

 Some of the other start up companies in this area are undoubtedly basing their products around ideas and suggestions put forward by others. Some of these products even had their beginnings in requests for specially designed products by C.A. members !

[PeterG]

20 hours ago, Archimago said:

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...

 

I'm a proud subjectivist because there are just too many things we cannot measure.  But I have to admit your point about the scientific method is damn good.  It's also exceptionally hard to dispute  (Curses!  Foiled again!)  I will check out your blog--thanks!

 

But in that same spirit of hypothesize, test, decide....I must note that I am also one of the <10 people who returned a REGEN (I found it harsh in my system).  The Uptone guys were great, and took it back right away.  I would encourage others to experiment with the REGEN and its competitors in their systems, with as much "controlled" and casual listening as possible.

[Archimago]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

so my question is how they came to design their initial product(s)

 

- if they had no theoretical or measurement background to guide them

 

The thing is, they have a theoretical background (ie. PHY noise, ground plane noise, etc... interfering with sound quality). But you're right, that leap from theoretical benefit to actualization of solving the problem appears absent.

 

I am certainly not accusing that John does not have the data. But I do believe from a business perspective, if they did release the results of what guided them to make a good product, it would enhance interest in the product and ultimately even allow for better devices which we can all benefit from!

 

28 minutes ago, sandyk said:

In John Swenson's case It's called EXPERIENCE !  John is a qualified E.E. with wide Industry experience.

 Some of the other start up companies in this area are undoubtedly basing their products around ideas and suggestions put forward by others. Some of these products even had their beginnings in requests for specially designed products by C.A. members !

 

Yes, experience is good. Remember what I said earlier, this is not about having faith in someone. It's simply a request to understand how an engineering problem was resolved!

 

19 minutes ago, PeterG said:

 

I'm a proud subjectivist because there are just too many things we cannot measure.  But I have to admit your point about the scientific method is damn good.  It's also exceptionally hard to dispute  (Curses!  Foiled again!)  I will check out your blog--thanks!

 

Hi PeterG. No worries. I have some good audiophile friends who are staunch "subjectivists"! But we still enjoy some great music, love to chat over dinner and beer, share about family and banter about great gear !

 

Some things we'll just "agree to disagree" when it's just "subjective" opinion in nature. But other things like what guided an engineering approach does require discussion that's more intellectual and logical in nature which is what I hope we're talking about here with UpTone and the REGEN. Nothing personal in this kind of back-and-forth discussion.

 

[mansr]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

I am heartily sick, tired  and fed up with uncalled for remarks like these from people like yourself, Mansr and others about fellow professionals

On behalf of all the engineers you've insulted over the years, what do you think we are?

[Archimago]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

  We need to remember here , that John is posting in an Audiophile forum, where the vast majority of members do not come from technical backgrounds. They are mainly people seeking ways to further improve their musical experiences.

What you are asking for is the level of explanations, measurements and other proof required by Professional Associations, or perhaps even Hydrogen Audio.

 

My hope is that in time, all audiophiles can be more versed in reading those graphs, explanations, and understanding what they mean. No need to be professorial! These basics IMO are just part of this hobby when we want to get serious with it (may not be for everyone of course). To be versed enough in BOTH the subjective experience and the objective intellectual understanding. IMO the educational part has been grossly lacking and audiophile magazines have done little to teach them in the last few decades; making things worse bit-by-bit when pseudoscientific products receive a "thumbs up" in a product review for example.

 

If as a hobby, the average level of understanding can be increased, then more of us will be able to ask manufacturers relevant questions and we can better direct our time and money to companies that are advancing the state-of-the-art... Of course I'm not saying that UpTone or John S. is not doing this but I am requesting more transparency on the engineering / objective level.

[Ralf11]

I think engineers are guys that got away with being able to study cookbook physics texts (like Holiday & Redneck at the place I went to) while the rest of us had to sweat thru the Berkeley books.

 

 

re: release the results of what guided them to make a good product - maybe that would let out trade secrets?

[Archimago]

19 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

...

re: release the results of what guided them to make a good product - maybe that would let out trade secrets?

 

If the product is inventive, then surely they should patent it to declare their rights. I don't see how releasing before and after noise levels, timing accuracy, or improved DAC output is a trade secret... For example, I presume for the REGEN, John Swenson must have tested many USB hub chips to find the best one with the lowest noise. Whichever USB chipset used would be his "trade secret". Showing that the REGEN accomplishes the improvements would not automatically point to the chipset involved.

 

[Superdad]

2 hours ago, Archimago said:

 

Yes, small company, few workers... I just don't think I'm asking for much. Putting a few screen shots up or showing some reduction of noise would be nice.

 

We have published measurements showing significant improvement of USB signal integrity:

 

Before:

 

After:

 

And John has measured and discussed reduction in ground-plane noise, as well as the hypothesized at length with regards to the mechanisms by which upstream clocking and perturbations are affecting the DAC.  From another thread middle of last year:

 

Hi Sound Hound,

I have been working on this for years, I'm getting close to a complete end to end measurement, but test equipment to properly measure this stuff doesn't exist, I'm having to design and build my own as I go along. I can measure pieces of the chain now and the rest hopefully coming soon. Part of the slowness was getting laid off and retiring and moving to a new state. I now have a working lab again and am working on the next piece of test equipment.

 

The hypothesis goes thusly:

 

ALL crystal oscillators exhibit frequency change with power supply voltage change. This is known and well measured. A cyclical change in voltage causes a cyclical change in frequency which shows up in phase noise plots. For example if you apply a 100Hz signal to the power supply of the oscillator you will see a 100Hz spur in the phase noise plot. 

 

A circuit that has a digital stream running through it will will generate noise on the power and ground planes of the PCB just from the transistors turning on and off that are processing that stream. This effect is very well known and measured. Combine this with the previous paragraph and you have jitter on the incoming data stream producing varying noise on the PG planes that modulates the clock increasing its jitter.

 

The above has been measured.

 

But shouldn't ground plane isolation and reclockers fix this? At first glance you would think so, but look carefully at what is happening. What is a reclocker? A flip flop. The incoming data with a particular phase noise profile goes through transistors inside the flip flop. Those transistors switching create noise on its internal PG traces, wires in the package and traces on the board. This noise is directly related to the phase noise profile of the incoming data. This PG noise changes the thresholds of the transistors that are clocking the data out thus overlaying the phase noise profile of the local clock with that of the clock used to generate the stream that is being reclocked. This process is hard to see, so I am working on a test setup that generates a "marker" in the phase noise of the incoming clock so it becomes easy to see this phase noise overlaying process.

 

This process has always been there but has been masked by the phase noise of the local clock itself. Now that we are using much lower phase noise local clocks this overlying is a significantly larger percentage of the total phase noise from the local clock.

 

Digital isolators used in ground plane isolation schemes don't help this. Jitter on the input to the isolator still shows up on the output, with added jitter from the isolators. This combination of original phase noise and that added by the isolator is what goes into the reclocking flip flop, increasing the jitter in the local clock. Some great strides have been made in the digital isolator space, significantly decreasing the added phase noise which over all helps, but now the phase noise from the input is a larger percentage, so changes to it are more obvious.

 

The result is that even digital isolators and reclocking don't completely block the phase noise contribution of the incoming data stream. It can help, but it doesn't get rid of it.

 

For USB (and Ethernet) it gets more complicated since the data is not a continuous stream, it comes in packets, thus this PG noise comes in bursts. This makes analysis of this in real systems much more difficult since most of the time it is not there. Thus any affects to an audio stream come and go. Thus just looking at a scope is not going to show anything since any distortion caused by this only happens when the data over the bus actually comes in. To look at anything with a scope will take synchronizing to the packet arrivals. Things like FFTs get problematic as well since what you are trying to measure is not constant . It will probably take something like wavelet analysis to see what is really happening.

 

The next step in my ongoing saga is to actually measure these effects on a DAC output. Again I have to build my own test equipment. The primary tool is going to be an ADC with a clock with lower phase noise than the changes which occur from the above. AND it needs to be 24 bits or so resolution. You just can't go out and buy these, they don't exist. So I build it myself.

 

I have done the design and have the boards and parts, but haven't had time to get them assembled yet. Then there is a ton of software to make this all work. Fortunately a large part already exists, designed to work with other systems but I can re-purpose it for this.

 

So it's not going to be right away, but hopefully not too off in the future I should be able to get to actually testing the end to end path of clock interactions all the way to DAC output.

 

John S.

------------------

 

Of course you will dismiss all this as we have not yet shown measured differences at the analog output of well-designed DAC (Amir at ASR did measure dramatic improvement from ISO REGEN with Schiit DACs).  

 

But allow me to post a few semi-rhetorical questions:

a) Do you truly think that the inexpensive Chinese DACs (with op-amps and cheap clocks) which are being popularly measured and that are showing equal or better in the standard suite of measurements will sound as good as the more elaborate and refined higher-priced products from serious firms?

 

b) Are you always (ever?) able to correlate the measurement differences you see with how the products sound?

 

c) Do you think that the dozen plus well-staffed firms producing all manner of dedicated music servers and renderers are simply selling overpriced snake oil?  I am referring to companies such as Aurender, Auralic, Melco, dCS, Lumin, exaSound, SOtM, etc.

 

d) Is there a reason--besides our availability and engagement with the forums--that UpTone Audio is consistently singled out in these conversations about product efficacy?  You do realize that our USB REGEN and ISO REGEN, while being about the first in the hub-chip based space, are now far from alone.  iFi Audio has nearly 10 hub-chip based devices, a much larger staff, and a hyper-active marketing department--and yet I never see any of the skeptics calling them out or demanding measurements.

 

Anyway, you gents can rave on.  John and I have much more important work to do this month and this year.  We will publish measurements as we produce them, but I am not going to let the chasing of measurement quarks get in the way of development of new products that deliver audible results--just as our current products do.  [Have you read the users reviews and comparisons of our new generation UltraCap LPS-1.2?  We just sold out the first 250 unit run.]

 

John does plenty of measurement during development.  It is just that it is close-in on the elements being worked on.  Spotting the differences in the big picture (at the DAC output) remains mostly elusive to all but the ears.  Since that is something that I know you do not accept, there is clearly no further need for us to engage.   I suppose you will continue to question and deride our process, but be advised that it is likely to drive more curious buyers to us.  Such attention has resulted in great sales spikes in the past.  

 

--Alex C.

[PeterG]

26 minutes ago, Archimago said:

If the product is inventive, then surely they should patent it to declare their rights. I don't see how releasing before and after noise levels, timing accuracy, or improved DAC output is a trade secret... For example, I presume for the REGEN, John Swenson must have tested many USB hub chips to find the best one with the lowest noise. Whichever USB chipset used would be his "trade secret". Showing that the REGEN accomplishes the improvements would not automatically point to the chipset involved.

 

Whoa!  Only certain types of inventiveness are patentable.  Further, even once a patent is granted, protecting it is difficult and complex at best, with guarantee of success.  The factors in determining the best course for the inventor are about 100 times more complex than a paragraph or two here (nor could I attempt them).

 

Had a fascinating conversation with a federal judge's clerk while waiting for the jury to come back in a patent case where my company had invested $1MM in legal fees and our opponents had invested 2X that.  I asked if she thought we were going to win.  Her response--we NEVER know with patent cases.  WE WON!  (But it still shakes me up that even a highly trained person who spends her life in a courtroom thought it was 50/50 even after the case.)

[fas42]

5 hours 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.

 

The aspect which is nearly always not given enough "respect" is that audio reproduction occurs via a system, and the overall integrity of that system, taking everything into account, is the most important factor. Combos of "brilliant" components just hooked together will always lack the capability of a very well sorted system using ordinary, consumer grade parts - this has been evident to me for decades; but nothing much has changed in attitudes of the audio crowd over that time ...

[Thuaveta]

40 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

c) Do you think that the dozen plus well-staffed firms producing all manner of dedicated music servers and renderers are simply selling overpriced snake oil?  I am referring to companies such as Aurender, Auralic, Melco, dCS, Lumin, exaSound, SOtM, etc.

 

Until proven otherwise: yes. This said, dCS does make a case I subjectively find absolutely stunning.

 

40 minutes ago, Superdad said:

iFi Audio has nearly 10 hub-chip based devices, a much larger staff, and a hyper-active marketing department--and yet I never see any of the skeptics calling them out or demanding measurements.

 

Not to be petty or anything, but bringing Amir up and then complaining about iFi not getting their fair share of skepticism... 

 

[Have you read the users reviews and comparisons of Dianetics ? They have thousands of people who're selling their houses to get the full Xenu experience !]

 

(All snark put aside, thanks for engaging. And if and when you guys can demonstrate that what you do is, at DAC output, worth what you're asking for it over what I currently use, I, for one, will be happy to buy from you. If you get more customers in the meantime, all the better )

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

On behalf of all the engineers you've insulted over the years, what do you think we are?

 

Angels whose Halos have slipped ?

[Archimago]

2 hours ago, PeterG said:

Whoa!  Only certain types of inventiveness are patentable.  Further, even once a patent is granted, protecting it is difficult and complex at best, with guarantee of success.  The factors in determining the best course for the inventor are about 100 times more complex than a paragraph or two here (nor could I attempt them).

 

Had a fascinating conversation with a federal judge's clerk while waiting for the jury to come back in a patent case where my company had invested $1MM in legal fees and our opponents had invested 2X that.  I asked if she thought we were going to win.  Her response--we NEVER know with patent cases.  WE WON!  (But it still shakes me up that even a highly trained person who spends her life in a courtroom thought it was 50/50 even after the case.)

 

Interesting note PeterG. Ouch, sounds painful going through situations like that! Well, glad your company won in any event :-).

 

[Archimago]

Thank you @Superdad for the response. It is good to know what has been expressed about the device and the type of objective findings you can provide. True, the results are not completely satisfactory for an explanation as to how the device could make "it sound like you are listening to a different DAC" without showing differences in DAC outputs. Appreciate the effort in any event.

 

For the sake of completeness... The semi-rhetorical questions:

 

3 hours ago, Superdad said:

...

 

But allow me to post a few semi-rhetorical questions:

a) Do you truly think that the inexpensive Chinese DACs (with op-amps and cheap clocks) which are being popularly measured and that are showing equal or better in the standard suite of measurements will sound as good as the more elaborate and refined higher-priced products from serious firms?

 

Some very inexpensive DACs measure very well and sound great. Nothing wrong with opamps IMO. In fact, I've received measurements recently showing much better inexpensive opamp performance than a certain well known discrete device with audibly worse noise floor.

 

Quote

b) Are you always (ever?) able to correlate the measurement differences you see with how the products sound?

 

Not sure about "always" but I would say most of the time... Noise differences can very often be correlated and measured! Certainly not never...

 

It's also complex because certain distortions can be euphonic.

 

Quote

 

c) Do you think that the dozen plus well-staffed firms producing all manner of dedicated music servers and renderers are simply selling overpriced snake oil?  I am referring to companies such as Aurender, Auralic, Melco, dCS, Lumin, exaSound, SOtM, etc.

 

I think Thuaveta answered this above. I wouldn't necessarily call things "snake oil". After all, some things are built to a higher quality and have value for the components and hopefully reliability, esthetic appeal, etc. I accept these devices can be expensive to make.

 

But if they insist that the price difference is mainly because it sounds different or there is clear correlation between sonic quality and price... Well, then I might have a problem with that and suggest some controlled listening volume controlled with bit-perfect streams.

 

Quote

 

d) Is there a reason--besides our availability and engagement with the forums--that UpTone Audio is consistently singled out in these conversations about product efficacy?  You do realize that our USB REGEN and ISO REGEN, while being about the first in the hub-chip based space, are now far from alone.  iFi Audio has nearly 10 hub-chip based devices, a much larger staff, and a hyper-active marketing department--and yet I never see any of the skeptics calling them out or demanding measurements.

 

Note that I've criticized iFi as well. In fact they complained so much about a blog post I made back in 2016 on "USB Audio Gremlins Exposed..." that I pulled the article even after I edited it and removed copyrighted content (IMO, it was still "fair use"). Total FUD in that article.

 

 

[Don Hills]

8 hours 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?

...

 

Indeed it would. And there are DACs which closely approach this ideal, some of them quite inexpensive. If a significant proportion of audiophiles value this immunity and are vocal about it, manufacturers will prioritise it in their designs.

[Mshenay]

On 2/18/2018 at 6:19 AM, firedog said:

the choices are too binary. The real answer for me is "X can make a difference, sometimes, depending on setup"

 

This, I think every discussion about... "SQ or SNAKEOIL" should be preference'd with this or any discussion about any kind of incremental improvement in any hobby or pursuit

 

If you haven't got the fundamentals nailed, spending resources on the "advanced" stuff or any incremental improvements isn't going to fix a fundamental problem.

 

To over simplify with an analogy, if I have my cell phone next to my tube amp and I'm hearing some noise... a fancy shmancy NOS Museum Grade Tube , power condition, magical noise cancelling power cables and event he best DAC in the world won't likely remove the noise... as I have a fundamental issue