UpTone EtherRegen measured. It's a switch.

[tapatrick]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

So where a sense of grievance or "heat" or a need to argue come from, I don't know.

Finding a way to measure the source of the need to argue, now that is something worth striving for! 

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 hours ago, firedog said:

I have a great system that I enjoy listening to. I like to spend my money on products that have demonstrable benefits. I'm perfectly capable of buying the ER or any other add on product and "hearing" an SQ bump in sighted listening. I prefer not to spend my money just to engage in self deception. 

And don't misunderstand: if reputable measurements come out showing what the ER does, I'd be glad to buy it. I'd also probably buy it if several well run/designed blind listening tests showed it to make an audible difference. I am willing to entertain the possibility that there are aspects to audio we don't know how to measure. I'm just not willing to use that catch all explanation for every sighted (and by definition) biased listening test. 

I think this is a great approach and one that is taken by many people. Given your honorable history here, I'm sure you realize this isn't the only approach and there's nothing wrong with consumers taking any approach they wish. 

 

Your statements are easy to digest, not abrasive, and worth considering for people who seek both sides of an issue. 

 

Thanks for your participation @firedog

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, tapatrick said:

Finding a way to measure the source of the need to argue, now that is something worth striving for! 

If it can't be measured the heat mustn't exist. 

[Ralf11]

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

cancel culture 

 

 

if you want to see a real cancel culture then go look at the Amir Hate Thread - it is supposed to be listening impressions.

 

You also did NOT answer my question.

 

If you are biased in favor of your advertisers, your site is nothing but an ad itself.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

 

if you want to see a real cancel culture then go look at the Amir Hate Thread - it is supposed to be listening impressions.

 

You also did NOT answer my question.

 

If you are biased in favor of your advertisers, your site is nothing but an ad itself.

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Assuming arguendo that the above is true, how does it affect these measurements?

 

Did his bias cause him to misread the noise analyzer?

 

Did his bias lead him to mis-perform the measurements in some manner?

 

Did his bias affect the screenshots he posted?

 

 

I've answered those questions previously in this thread. Your bias seems to cause you to take his measurements at face value. 

 

I'm not biased in favor of my advertisers, but I am biased in favor of the AS Community. In fact we've lost thousands of dollars over the last year for not being biased toward advertisers.

 

If my bias is too much for you, I can live with that. 

 

P.S. I actually don't know anything about the EtherRegen. When it was mentioned above that a Schiit product was used to test it, I had to see if there was some kind of optical or USB output in the ER. 

 

 

[Ralf11]

I am not biased at all.  I don't see anything wrong with his methods, nor has anything been pointed out, even AFTER I asked about them

 

Why don't YOU make some measurements if you don't like Amir's?  I certainly have not seen you respond to those questions above.

 

If your only goal is money then go ahead and turn this into an advertiser site.  You seem to be on your way.

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Your bias seems to cause you to take his measurements at face value.

Absent evidence of flaws in his test setup or other measurements showing a different outcome, taking Amir's results at face value is the unbiased thing to do. Dismissing measurements solely because of who published them is the very definition of bias, and you are the one guilty of it.

[Blake]

From Amir's review:

 

"So I started with my generic switch connection and started to stream some of my reference quality content. While the music was playing, I switched Ethernet cables, this time having Port B of EtherRegen feeding the Matrix i. There was absolutely no audible difference. I then switched back to generic switch feed. No difference. I switched back to EtherRegen. No difference. None. Nothing."

 

If I am following correctly, Amir's subjective listening evaluation was sighted.

 

If we can agree there is a theoretical possibility that not all sonic aspects we can perceive with our hearing can be measured with Amir's equipment, then in such case, wouldn't Amir's review be more complete and valid if he sent the ER to an unbiased group to perform unsighted, controlled listening tests, then add those results to his review?   

 

If Amir is telling his readers the ER does nothing, it seems to me, without doing the controlled listening test with independent, unbiased listeners, then his conclusion should, at a minimum, be taken with a grain of salt. 

 

Caveat: I don't read/follow ASR, so apologies if I am mistaken on Amir's testing methodologies.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I am not biased at all.  I don't see anything wrong with his methods, nor has anything been pointed out, even AFTER I asked about them

 

Why don't YOU make some measurements if you don't like Amir's?  I certainly have not seen you respond to those questions above.

 

If your only goal is money then go ahead and turn this into an advertiser site.  You seem to be on your way.

 

Everyone has biases. 

 

I don't have the skills or equipment to conduct a test rigorous enough that I'd sign my name on. I'd love to read the results of such a test on any component. Would be interesting. 

 

Money isn't a goal of mine in the least. I'd lose all the advertising quickly if I could still pay my bills. It seems you no longer have an interest in this site. Feel free to leave rather than cause undeserved trouble. I'm sure the guys at HA will welcome you with open arms.

 

 

 

 

 

[BigAlMc]

16 hours ago, plissken said:

The measurement data is pretty damning.

The measurement data is pretty damning of Amirs method of measuring whatever the ER is doing.

 

1 ER user posted they didn't hear a difference and sold theirs. Pretty much everyone else is raving about it. But measurement trumps all else?

 

Good grief! 

 

All us ER owners are wrong because your buddy Amir says so?

 

For someone trying to argue science you have a pretty bizarre approach to evidence!

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, mansr said:

Absent evidence of flaws in his test setup or other measurements showing a different outcome, taking Amir's results at face value is the unbiased thing to do. Dismissing measurements solely because of who published them is the very definition of bias, and you are the one guilty of it.

Everyone has bias. Accepting anything on blind faith is a recipe for disaster. 

 

If you don't see flaws, it shouldn't then follow that there aren't any and that the conclusions are 100% valid. 

[nbpf]

I finally checked the "Audio Science Review" web page and I have to agree with those that find the tone and the style of the review unacceptable.  

 

That said, I do not see anything obviously wrong in the methodology and in the measurements and the bad style of the review does not justify dismissing its findings.

 

In other words, valid objections to the results presented in "Audio Science Review" should be based on logical arguments or on facts or measurements that invalidate the ones presented in the review or that demonstrate their irrelevance, not on arguments of fairness, style or good taste. So far, I do not think that I have come across any such valid objections in this thread. Am I missing something obvious?

[Nenon]

Thank you @plissken for starting this thread.

It has been extremely useful to me. But not to learn anything new about the EhterREGEN. I have it in my system, and that's the best way to judge a component. The reason I find this thread so useful is completely different - it is like a gold mine with extremely valuable info! But only to help me update my "ignore list", a new forum function I just learned about :). 

[plissken]

40 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

OMG, I guess I need to look at this. He tested a DAC without Ethernet input, to test the effects, if any, of an Ethernet "regen?" Please tell me how this makes any sense. 

 

Here is the product page for the EtherRegen. You show us where it's only intended purpose is for a Streamer and not a head end computer feeding a DAC over USB.

 

Here is what I'm refering to:

"  Across the ADIM™, at the other end of the EtherREGEN, is a single 100Mbps copper Ethernet port. This is the ‘B’-side port. Attach the computer/streamer/renderer endpoint that is directly connected to your DAC*to the ‘B’-side Ethernet port with a copper Ethernet cable. "

 

That's how i made sense of it. But then again that's just me.

 

Lets take your OMG one step further: You have a class of device in mind. Which one would you like tested?  How about something like a $100 or $200 Roku. You know something that most likely has the cheapest, bean counter, ethernet implementation known to mankind.

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, Blake said:

From Amir's review:

 

"So I started with my generic switch connection and started to stream some of my reference quality content. While the music was playing, I switched Ethernet cables, this time having Port B of EtherRegen feeding the Matrix i. There was absolutely no audible difference. I then switched back to generic switch feed. No difference. I switched back to EtherRegen. No difference. None. Nothing."

 

If I am following correctly, Amir's subjective listening evaluation was sighted.

 

If we can agree there is a theoretical possibility that not all sonic aspects we can perceive with our hearing can be measured with Amir's equipment, then in such case, wouldn't Amir's review be more complete and valid if he sent the ER to an unbiased group to perform unsighted, controlled listening tests, then add those results to his review?   

 

If Amir is telling his readers the ER does nothing, it seems to me, without doing the controlled listening test with independent, unbiased listeners, then his review should be taken with a grain of salt.  Caveat: I don't read/follow ASR, so apologies if I am mistaken on Amir's testing methodologies.

 

Wow, I can't believe all the objectivists haven't taken him to task for conducting a sighted listening test and subjectively pumping up his distaste for the product by concluding with a triple redundant, "No difference. None. Nothing."

 

Where are all the #HashTagHeros to demand his resignation?

[mansr]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Everyone has bias. Accepting anything on blind faith is a recipe for disaster. 

Who said anything about blind faith?

 

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If you don't see flaws, it shouldn't then follow that there aren't any and that the conclusions are 100% valid. 

If I don't see flaws, it's possible I've overlooked something. If nobody can point out any concrete flaws (hand-waving doesn't count), the methodology was in all likelihood reasonably good. That is the situation here. Tell me what was wrong with the procedure, or show me someone who can.

[Ralf11]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Wow, I can't believe all the objectivists haven't taken him to task for conducting a sighted listening test and subjectively pumping up his distaste for the product by concluding with a triple redundant, "No difference. None. Nothing."

 

Where are all the #HashTagHeros to demand his resignation?

 

 

stop trolling

[Ralf11]

3 minutes ago, nbpf said:

I finally checked the "Audio Science Review" web page and I have to agree with those that find the tone and the style of the review unacceptable.  

 

That said, I do not see anything obviously wrong in the methodology and in the measurements and the bad style of the review does not justify dismissing its findings.

 

In other words, valid objections to the results presented in "Audio Science Review" should be based on logical arguments or on facts or measurements that invalidate the ones presented in the review or that demonstrate their irrelevance, not on arguments of fairness, style or good taste. So far, I do not think that I have come across any such valid objections in this thread. Am I missing something obvious?

 

well put

[randytsuch]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Wow, I can't believe all the objectivists haven't taken him to task for conducting a sighted listening test and subjectively pumping up his distaste for the product by concluding with a triple redundant, "No difference. None. Nothing."

 

Where are all the #HashTagHeros to demand his resignation?

I gave up participating in these types of debates long ago.  IMHO, you won't change someone's mind if they've already decided one way or the other, so I consider it a waste of time to argue.

But I wish you good luck.

[The Computer Audiophile]

18 minutes ago, nbpf said:

In other words, valid objections to the results presented in "Audio Science Review" should be based on logical arguments or on facts or measurements that invalidate the ones presented in the review or that demonstrate their irrelevance, not on arguments of fairness, style or good taste. So far, I do not think that I have come across any such valid objections in this thread. Am I missing something obvious?

 

For the most part yes. I have an issue with conclusions made from the measurements. I'm willing to give ASR the benefit of the doubt that those are the measurement Amir came up with. I'm not willing to believe the procedure isn't flawed like some of his other measurements. I just don't have the skills, time, and equipment to refute it. This doesn't make me wrong and it doesn't make me right. What it does for me is cause me to be very cautious about making conclusions based on anything from ASR. 

 

By the way, thanks for your post. it was well reasoned and stated to make it easy to have a discussion with you about it. 

 

 

18 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

Here is the product page for the EtherRegen. You show us where it's only intended purpose is for a Streamer and not a head end computer feeding a DAC over USB.

 

Here is what I'm refering to:

"  Across the ADIM™, at the other end of the EtherREGEN, is a single 100Mbps copper Ethernet port. This is the ‘B’-side port. Attach the computer/streamer/renderer endpoint that is directly connected to your DAC*to the ‘B’-side Ethernet port with a copper Ethernet cable. "

 

That's how i made sense of it. But then again that's just me.

 

Lets take your OMG one step further: You have a class of device in mind. Which one would you like tested?  How about something like a $100 or $200 Roku. You know something that most likely has the cheapest, bean counter, ethernet implementation known to mankind.

 

Wow. I wrongly assumed that the testing methodology used an Ethernet cable from the ER straight to a DAC's Ethernet input. Placing a computer in between the ER and the DAC seems to me to be crazy, if one wants to isolate variables. I would never make a conclusion based on this information. 

 

I hadn't read that bolded information about the ER. Interesting. However, don't you think someone running a test of a device would want to eliminate as many variable as possible, before concluding the device is a sham, the proprietor is a charlatan, and people who like it are audiophools?

 

I think the ER should be tested with several DACs that contain different cards from StreamUnlimited, ConversDigital, Merging Technologies, etc... before anyone should make a conclusion about its efficacy. That's just me, a non-scientist, non-engineer, who likes to have all the information before judging and defaming a business. 

[plissken]

29 minutes ago, Blake said:

If Amir is telling his readers the ER does nothing, it seems to me, without doing the controlled listening test with independent, unbiased listeners, then his conclusion should, at a minimum, be taken with a grain of salt. 

 

If the ER does something, it seems to me, without doing the controlled listening test with independent, unbiased listeners, then their claim should, at a minimum, be taken with a grain of salt. 

[plissken]

6 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Wow. I wrongly assumed that the testing methodology used an Ethernet cable from the ER straight to a DAC's Ethernet input. Placing a computer in between the ER and the DAC seems to me to be crazy, if one wants to isolate variables. I would never make a conclusion based on this information. 

 

it's UpTones own marketing speak Chris! How can you be so obtuse?!

[Blake]

1 minute ago, plissken said:

 

If the ER does something, it seems to me, without doing the controlled listening test with independent, unbiased listeners, then their claim should, at a minimum, be taken with a grain of salt. 

 

Absolutely, I have no problem with your post.  The claims of any company selling anything should be taken with a grain of salt, unless scientifically validated using sufficient testing.

[plissken]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I hadn't read that bolded information about the ER. Interesting. However, don't you think someone running a test of a device would want to eliminate as many variable as possible.

 

Sauce that is good on goose is equally good on gander.

 

Thanks for the admission that you have been making talking points without any real research of what I and some others are actually talking about.

 

You can't back-peddle that a computer is a variable to eliminate when it's one of the variables the ER is supposed to correct for. It's a variable to test, not to eliminate.

[nbpf]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If you don't see flaws, it shouldn't then follow that there aren't any and that the conclusions are 100% valid. 

That's correct. But, by the same argument, it also doesn't follow that there are some flaws, does it? You are certainly right in pointing out the potential danger of blindly accepting the results of measurements or of other empirical investigations like listening tests. But your posts strongly suggest that you believe that the results presented in "Audio Science Review" are flawed or irrelevant. If this is the case, why don't you explain why do you believe so? What do you think is actually wrong with those results?