UpTone EtherRegen measured. It's a switch.

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, plissken said:

 

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.

No back peddling here. There's company marketing speak and there's reality. This is the nature of life since the first "lady of the night" advertised herself. The oldest profession is marketing. 

 

This is the exact situation I was talking about earlier. There are ways to run a test, to achieve a result that may not be the same if run another way. Engineers know how to test things under ideal conditions and less than ideal conditions. I real test would have taken into account some variables and actually tried to produce a result other than the one that was wished for. 

 

This thing smells even worse the more I know about it. 

[Confused]

Much fine debate here, however, it is a little ironic that many people are getting upset that Amir’s measurements do not demonstrate that the EtherRegen does anything, when at the same time the manufacturer states that they have not yet been able to measure what it does.  So it would seem to me that Amir’s results are consistent with the manufacturer’s.

 

This then leaves the question of does the EtherRegen do something that cannot be measured?  Only listening tests remain to resolve this one, and if you want to eliminate any bias then this should be done blind.

 

So unless I am missing something, I would suggest that those that can set up blind test.  And no cheating folks!

[thumb5]

@The Computer Audiophile As I read it, the main test was performed with a Matrix streaming DAC using the Ethernet input, so the ER was connected directly to the DAC.  The Modi 2 result was an additional data point later in the report.

[The Computer Audiophile]

16 minutes ago, Blake said:

 

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.

 

Absolutely.

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, nbpf said:

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? 

 

I think you cut off my quote a bit early. I said it doesn't make me right or wrong. I agree with you.

 

Based on a history of incorrect tests, especially with products designed by John Swenson, and a clear bias against a few companies, and a clear hidden agenda favoring other companies (Berkeley, MQA), and the fact that this test used the most convoluted signal path imaginable (when a much more simple one with less variables could've also been tested), and the fact that wide-ranging conclusions were drawn from very narrow "evidence," I'm incredibly skeptical.

 

If this test was rigorous and the conclusions followed from the evidence, I'd be totally onboard.

 

[plissken]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

No back peddling here. There's company marketing speak and there's reality. This is the nature of life since the first "lady of the night" advertised herself. The oldest profession is marketing. 

 

This is the exact situation I was talking about earlier. There are ways to run a test, to achieve a result that may not be the same if run another way. Engineers know how to test things under ideal conditions and less than ideal conditions. I real test would have taken into account some variables and actually tried to produce a result other than the one that was wished for. 

 

This thing smells even worse the more I know about it. 

 

Your options are to either poke holes in the testing, come up with your own testing that can be replicated, or using the information Amir has posted repeat the test and either come up with different outcomes or show repeatability.

 

HOW does this smell even worse as time goes on? What specifically about how he tested is problematic?

 

He tested direct to a Streamer, he tested to a computer driving a DAC. All per UpTone marketing speech.

 

You never did answer my question: How about he tests a Roku with the worlds cheapest possible Ethernet implementation. How about a $55 Raspberry  Pi 4?

 

What type, cost, class, economy of product will have a sufficiently poor Ethernet port that an audiophile switch is going to show a measured result on on the output of a DAC?

[mansr]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

the fact that this test used the most convoluted signal path imaginable (when a much more simple one with less variables could've also been tested)

Please outline how you'd like a test setup to look.

[Jud]

19 minutes ago, plissken said:

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.

 

In the UpTone sponsored forum you can find them stating that having a general purpose computer between ER and DAC is not an optimal configuration.

 

In any event, this is getting down rather far into the weeds of a discussion that, as I noted before, seems to me to be rather a waste, since the folks who have the ER didn't demand measurements, and those who want to see measurements didn't buy the ER.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, thumb5 said:

@The Computer Audiophile As I read it, the main test was performed with a Matrix streaming DAC using the Ethernet input, so the ER was connected directly to the DAC.  The Modi 2 result was an additional data point later in the report.

The second data point is very convoluted.

 

Does anyone know which Ethernet card is in the Matrix DAC and how it handles incoming data?

 

Would be actually helpful to say "these results are valid with card XYZ, but the results were a bit different using card ABC." Only if this is true. But, based on one small slice of data people have decided Alex should be out of business. Great logic people. Not directed at you @thumb5, thanks for the info.

[plissken]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

 

and the fact that this test used the most convoluted signal path imaginable

 

 

He went from Switch to Streamer. How's that convoluted?

 

I don't know about everyone here but my home network needs cannot be a router to a 5 port switch.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, plissken said:

You never did answer my question: How about he tests a Roku with the worlds cheapest possible Ethernet implementation. How about a $55 Raspberry  Pi 4?

I won't respond to your favorite clap traps. 

[plissken]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

In the UpTone sponsored forum you can find them stating that having a general purpose computer between ER and DAC is not an optimal configuration.

So the online forum is to trump their product page?

 

One you have to sift through pages and pages and one it's right there. Jud that's a stretch.

[plissken]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I won't respond to your favorite clap traps. 

HAHAHAHA. Ok Chris.

 

Can't answer a simple question.

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, plissken said:

Your options are

No, my options aren't what you state. 

 

I'm using common sense and average logic to look at the conclusions drawn and saying one doesn't follow the other. 

[nbpf]

25 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

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. 

...

It is true that the language and, up to a certain extent, the results shown on ASR (not only for the EtherREGEN) do not inspire much trust. But this does not imply that they are flawed. The tests also seem quite straightforward and not very different from those that can be found on other sites. Assuming honesty and accuracy, I do not see obvious flaws in the methodology. If there are obvious ones, I expect UpTone Audio to point out such flaws and to provide more rigorous or more relevant measurements. So far, this has not happened. 

[Jud]

1 minute ago, plissken said:

 

I don't know about everyone here but my home network needs cannot be a router to a 5 port switch.

 

I don't recall anyone saying the ER and a single router could meet everybody's entire home network needs, so I'm guessing UpTone is comfortable not serving the segment of the market that would require it. 🙂

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, nbpf said:

If there are obvious ones, I expect UpTone Audio to point out such flaws and to provide more rigorous or more relevant measurements. So far, this has not happened. 

This would be really cool.

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, plissken said:

So the online forum is to trump their product page?

 

One you have to sift through pages and pages and one it's right there. Jud that's a stretch.

 

I don't believe these sources are exclusive to each other, but complementary. But if you feel it's a stretch, I certainly won't try to convince you otherwise. I won't succeed, and I'd only bother you in the effort. Kinda like what I've been saying about this whole business of dueling arguments between the "We want measurements" and the "We just wanna listen" folks. 🙂

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I don't believe these sources are exclusive to each other, but complementary. But if you feel it's a stretch, I certainly won't try to convince you otherwise. I won't succeed, and I'd only bother you in the effort. Kinda like what I've been saying about this whole business of dueling arguments between the "We want measurements" and the "We just wanna listen" folks. 🙂

I feel like @Jud's comment should end the thread.