UpTone Audio EtherREGEN (Objective Discussion Only)

[mfsoa]

9 hours ago, Seraph said:

Show me the numbers that your device makes [edit]any rig sound better and I'll order your network switch right now.

Really, show us the numbers.

Exactly which measurements have been shown to correlate to the sound quality of ethernet switches? Surely you have this information as you are looking to have specific numerical values inserted so you can determine what the product sounds like.

 

Surely it would help Uptone if you provide them that list, along with target values that you know to provide "bad" "acceptable" or "above average"  so that they know what measurements to be concerned with. 

 

I would also like this information for sneakers...watches...food...women... Is there ANY other freaking hobby in the world where looking at numbers on a page is seen as an adequate substitute for actually USING (listening) to the device under test? 

 

I'll give you numbers but first you have to listen to the unit in question. Now I give you the numbers 11 and 0.004. Has the sound of the unit changed? No? You mean having numbers made no difference to the sound of the unit?

 

Why do we need others to tell us our stereo sounds good?

 

 

 

 

[manueljenkin]

29 minutes ago, mfsoa said:

Exactly which measurements have been shown to correlate to the sound quality of ethernet switches? Surely you have this information as you are looking to have specific numerical values inserted so you can determine what the product sounds like.

 

Surely it would help Uptone if you provide them that list, along with target values that you know to provide "bad" "acceptable" or "above average"  so that they know what measurements to be concerned with. 

 

I would also like this information for sneakers...watches...food...women... Is there ANY other freaking hobby in the world where looking at numbers on a page is seen as an adequate substitute for actually USING (listening) to the device under test? 

 

I'll give you numbers but first you have to listen to the unit in question. Now I give you the numbers 11 and 0.004. Has the sound of the unit changed? No? You mean having numbers made no difference to the sound of the unit?

 

Why do we need others to tell us our stereo sounds good?

 

 

 

 

Never knew women were considered a hobby in few countries! Otherwise I'm with your side. But this is objective fi, so let's deal it objectively.

 

People tend to act like they know everything about our hearing and every way to comprehend it. Which is false, even in the medical field their scope is very limited. Partly because how tightly our hearing is coupled to our brain. It's hard to decipher how the information is sent and processed by the brain and the field is an active area of research.

 

So how come they assort fr=everything, thd= everything. Or more so assign weights that fr is the most discerning attribute of sound. Who gave you the right to assign such weights when you don't really know what really denotes fidelity.

 

In any sort of validation, (like <cough> <cough >asr does) there is this concept called coverage. What scenarios does the simulations or vectors cover and what they don't cover. In our case, we don't even have a bounded clue of what needs to be measured in the first place, let alone the fact that there is a significant difference between analysing steady state parameters, dynamic parameters and linearity parameters all of which science does say is audible (pretty much how you are able to localise objects in space and differentiate voices and instruments in real life). Only the first type is somewhat reliably measured by asr, and even that is up to the scrutiny that his measuring gear filters don't mask too many things. Signal/aberration masking is a real thing.

What measures too good in one area might actually have been overcompensated and might have lost a lot of fidelity in another area, which ironically might be more audible. They can only say, within their limited measurements, they haven't been able to spot a difference. Doesn't mean there is no difference.

 

It's also funny that people don't care about reconstruction filter accuracy or phase when in reality both are audible not only due to human hearing sensitivity but also due to the way the anti alias, etc happens. But they care about 0.0002 %thd in bass when your ear canal in itself has a thd so high that you could possibly not even detect 5% thd in 20hz (5% is a super conservative estimate). Let alone the thd of the recording equipment. Long story short, just because someone hears better than what you measured doesn't mean they are deluded or are hearing placebo. You cant assign weights to aspects of fidelity yet, an aberration is an aberration and every individual aberration is its own character and possibly not be able to remedied in any other link in the chain. It could very well be real in the physical world, just not measured yet.

 

Coming back to alex, I'd love to see things mentioned here being changed to be less assertive in case they couldn't reliably measure it yet in any side of the link. "So why does this arrangement matter?" I can see their approach, but as it stands I'm not sure if they have a reliable way to showcase it yet on a repeatable measurement sheet. I'd be happy to lend alex a helping hand in measuring these devices in a short while. I'm already working on better headphone and source parameterization using custom tones, and results have been surprising so far. I'll share it when I can get it published as a verified paper. No I don't want a free unit, I don't like computer playback (gonna go the teraplayer way). I'll give you the tones and measurement device specs, you shall measure.

[manueljenkin]

One more thing to note with the measurements done today. The methods involve certain math/windows apart from the filters and samplers. These windows actually choose to ignore/discard certain aspects of the signal. All theories base on top of a condition/assumption which may not always be true. Nyquist theorem has its own boundary conditions to be fulfilled (perfect aa filters is one of them), autocorrelation needs its own boundary conditions to be fulfilled. Parametrizing something as linear time invariant and using lti analysis methods is inherently discarding a lot of information since barely any system is truly lti. It's even more so in case of headphones where every aspect of the link is non linear. The transducer-amp interaction is similar to a generator-motor interaction, and I don't think I've ever seen a simple model for that interaction in my course. The graph is complicated. Same goes for the air packet in between the transducer and the ear - you enter into fluid dynamics which is a concept in itself, turbulence, navier-stokes equations and what not.

[Summit]

On 3/29/2020 at 3:06 PM, mfsoa said:

Exactly which measurements have been shown to correlate to the sound quality of ethernet switches? Surely you have this information as you are looking to have specific numerical values inserted so you can determine what the product sounds like.

 

Surely it would help Uptone if you provide them that list, along with target values that you know to provide "bad" "acceptable" or "above average"  so that they know what measurements to be concerned with. 

 

I would also like this information for sneakers...watches...food...women... Is there ANY other freaking hobby in the world where looking at numbers on a page is seen as an adequate substitute for actually USING (listening) to the device under test? 

 

I'll give you numbers but first you have to listen to the unit in question. Now I give you the numbers 11 and 0.004. Has the sound of the unit changed? No? You mean having numbers made no difference to the sound of the unit?

 

Why do we need others to tell us our stereo sounds good?

 

 

 

 

 

I can only speak for myself and it’s not that I need others to tell me what sounds is good. It’s that I want to know the mechanisms and which components and designs that really have an impact on SQ, and why they have it.

 

To me audio is hobby there the listening is the most important, no doubt, however I also think that it is interesting to know which impact different hardware has, which gear that match well and how we hear and perceive sound. To identify which technical parameters that correlates with SQ can IMO help manufacturer to make better gear and hopefully consumers in their pursuit of building good sounding audio systems.   

[Seraph]

On 3/29/2020 at 4:06 PM, mfsoa said:

Exactly which measurements have been shown to correlate to the sound quality of ethernet switches? Surely you have this information as you are looking to have specific numerical values inserted so you can determine what the product sounds like.

 

Surely it would help Uptone if you provide them that list, along with target values that you know to provide "bad" "acceptable" or "above average"  so that they know what measurements to be concerned with. 

 

I would also like this information for sneakers...watches...food...women... Is there ANY other freaking hobby in the world where looking at numbers on a page is seen as an adequate substitute for actually USING (listening) to the device under test? 

 

I'll give you numbers but first you have to listen to the unit in question. Now I give you the numbers 11 and 0.004. Has the sound of the unit changed? No? You mean having numbers made no difference to the sound of the unit?

 

Why do we need others to tell us our stereo sounds good?

 

 

 

 

How about any measurements that shows what this device does?

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, Seraph said:

How about any measurements that shows what this device does?

 

If you are that interested you could always purchase one yourself and measure it's performance, (assuming that you know how to ) as I believe that Uptone has a generous return policy for those that don't obtain an AUDIBLE improvement in their own system.

 

[Seraph]

15 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

If you are that interested you could always purchase one yourself and measure it's performance, (assuming that you know how to ) as I believe that Uptone has a generous return policy for those that don't obtain an AUDIBLE improvement in their own system.

 

Why on earth would I pay for something that has no proven affect on sound quality whatsoever?

And that, is the whole point of my argument.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Seraph said:

Why on earth would I pay for something that was no proven affect on sound quality whatsoever?

And that, is the whole point of my argument.

Is that expectation bias? Only kidding. I wish everyone would lighten up a bit. 

[OldBigEars]

15 hours ago, Seraph said:

Why on earth would I pay for something that has no proven affect on sound quality whatsoever?

And that, is the whole point of my argument.

 

Stick with what you know, Seraph.  There's no need to try new things, just because many other people enjoy them.   They are probably stupid, anyway, right? Carry on the way you are.  Save all that money.  And have fun in your fact-based, bullshit free world - if that's what you want.

[manueljenkin]

2 minutes ago, OldBigEars said:

 

Stick with what you know, Seraph.  There's no need to try new things, just because many other people enjoy them.   They are probably stupid, anyway, right? Carry on the way you are.  Save all that money.  And have fun in your fact-based, bullshit free world - if that's what you want.

His/her opinion is NOT FACT based. It is abstraction based!.

[OldBigEars]

Just now, manueljenkin said:

His/her opinion is NOT FACT based. It is abstraction based!.

 

Really?  (hint ~ think 'irony')  Sorry if my my message was unclear.

[manueljenkin]

15 hours ago, Seraph said:

Why on earth would I pay for something that has no proven affect on sound quality whatsoever?

And that, is the whole point of my argument.

There have been so many things that were unexplained for a while before the gears evolved measure and prove them. Tonnes of theories. It was believed the sun revolved around the earth for centuries. And some people still believe that way, just like you people do in audio.

 

The finding typically comes first, explanation next and proof later! If you want to miss out on an experience, it's your wish. I've factually disproven the credibility of assessment techniques at asr and innerfidelity (read older Post). I'm yet to see even a dc offset measurement, crosstalk measurement from asr all of which can kick both the transducer and your perception for a spin.

[manueljenkin]

2 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

His/her opinion is NOT FACT based. It is abstraction based!.

I got your message. I just didn't want to give that loophole. Else they'd bring in a dictionary or something and would start in objectivist terms.

[Seraph]

8 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

His/her opinion is NOT FACT based. It is abstraction based!.

Would you care to elaborate why you think my opinion isn't based on facts?

[Seraph]

10 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

There have been so many things that were unexplained for a while before the gears evolved measure and prove them. Tonnes of theories. It was believed the sun revolved around the earth for centuries. And some people still believe that way, just like you people do in audio.

 

The finding typically comes first, explanation next and proof later! If you want to miss out on an experience, it's your wish. I've factually disproven the credibility of assessment techniques at asr and innerfidelity (read older Post). I'm yet to see even a dc offset measurement, crosstalk measurement from asr all of which can kick both the transducer and your perception for a spin.

But in this case it has not been proven that the device in question does anything whatsoever.

[Seraph]

25 minutes ago, manueljenkin said:

I've factually disproven the credibility of assessment techniques at asr and innerfidelity (read older Post).

That is interesting. Exactly when and how did you arrive to this conclusion? Are the people over at ASR aware of this? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, Seraph said:

Are the people over at ASR aware of this? 

You ask that question as if it has meaning. Like the people over there are the arbiters of truth and science. I highly recommend you look at that site a little closer for conflicts of interest, disingenuous “reviews,” and measurements corrected much after the fact / damage has been done. 

[Iving]

46 minutes ago, Seraph said:

But in this case it has not been proven that the device in question does anything whatsoever.

 

Well neither you nor anyone else has proven that it doesn't. What's more, you bandy about prejudicial assertions without having owned or heard the thing. Why do you do that? It's because you have an agenda. But satisfaction of your agenda relies on demonstration that the device both does not and *cannot* affect SQ. Against the grain of the manufacturer's argument, even if you will not accept that the eR plausibly affects SQ, it is extremely unlikely by any scientifically rigorous standards of logic or proof that you or anybody else will demonstrate that SQ effects are impossible. Yours is a vain political pursuit. If you are bent on the matter, why not do what is suggested and buy a unit. Do your measurements, and then let's see how your arguments that the device *cannot* affect SQ stack up. That is - if anybody will read them. I know I won't. I should be brought to tears of boredom. Of course it's a waste of your $640 - whether satisfying your ego or developing a logical case. Why not spend your time and money on something you can enjoy without bitterness?

 

I have an eR. I'm loving it because it makes my music better. Please don't take away my fun Mr. Seraph.

 

edit: I see that my earnest remarks regarding science and logic in relation to this matter in this thread were tidied away along with other material. That's a shame. I wouldn't have posted the above out of this context had I realised.

[charlesphoto]

What Iving says. And who really cares? Stop trying to 'save' people from buying audio products from reputable companies. It's their money to spend as they see fit, as long as it's delivered in a timely manner with service to back it up. There's a lot bigger problems in the world that should keep you up at night. Grow up. 

[manueljenkin]

17 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Well neither you nor anyone else has proven that it doesn't. What's more, you bandy about prejudicial assertions without having owned or heard the thing. Why do you do that? It's because you have an agenda. But satisfaction of your agenda relies on demonstration that the device both does not and *cannot* affect SQ. Against the grain of the manufacturer's argument, even if you will not accept that the eR plausibly affects SQ, it is extremely unlikely by any scientifically rigorous standards of logic or proof that you or anybody else will demonstrate that SQ effects are impossible. Yours is a vain political pursuit. If you are bent on the matter, why not do what is suggested and buy a unit. Do your measurements. And let's see how your arguments that the device *cannot* affect SQ stack up. That is - if anybody will read them. I know I won't. I should be brought to tears of boredom. Of course it's a waste of your $640 - whether satisfying your ego or developing a logical case. Why not spend your time and money on something you can enjoy without bitterness?

 

I have an eR. I'm loving it because it makes my music better. Please don't take away my fun Mr. Seraph.

 

edit: I see that my earnest remarks regarding science and logic in relation to this matter in this thread were tidied away along with other material. That's a shame. I wouldn't have posted above out of this context had I realised.

Now if someone wants to prove er cannot change the perceivable sound, first they need to define a bound on what is perceivable. Then device a method and gear to go about it. So in that pursuit, they should be able to study neuroscience, material science, transducer-amplifier interactions, digital and analog electronics (including effects at quantum level) all at Doctorate/research level. In the process they could possibly decipher how tinnitus is generated in the brain, teach computers to precisely locate, and discern objects, sounds and dialogues and heck even take care of the job of mastering and remastering. Can we really expect those guys to do that? They just have their own place to happily push their agendas and showcase their ego. Let them have their share of fun.

 

Note: I don't own the er and I won't coz I am not interested in computer playback anymore. But I have the uspcb from the same manufacturer and I'm happy with it.

[pkane2001]

27 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You ask that question as if it has meaning. Like the people over there are the arbiters of truth and science. I highly recommend you look at that site a little closer for conflicts of interest, disingenuous “reviews,” and measurements corrected much after the fact / damage has been done. 

 

So much for an objective forum. You gents don't understand the meaning of the word. Opinions, unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories are not it, sorry.

[mfsoa]

Seraph,

 

You (anyone, actually) should definitely not buy this unit unless you either:

a) Trust that the manufacturer builds a device that improves sound quality to an extent that is worth your $:

 

I'm not sure what information a vendor could possibly offer to satisfy this requirement. Uptone sure doesn't expect your trust, they expect you to evaluate the product and will take it back if you are not pleased. Blaming a vendor for that, I just don't get...Vendor-provided DBT results? Measured performance? IMO, relying on objective measures to determine what an individual's subjective response to a product will be, when no such correlation exists, is not the path toward good sound. It is the path toward showing test numbers to your friends if that's why you are interested in this hobby.

 

b) Evaluate the unit in your home and see if it worth your $:

 

In this case you try the unit and see if it works to your satisfaction. If it does not, you send it back. I do not see where this technique has lost it's value in putting a satisfying system together.

 

To say that approach a) where the device is not used but the sound quality is somehow known from extrapolating from test numbers that have not been shown to correlate to sound quality is more objective than approach b), where the only intent of the device ("improve sound quality") is evaluated by the only measurement system that can register this information (YOUR ear/brain system)...well, I just don't get it. To put it mildly.

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

So much for an objective forum. You gents don't understand the meaning of the word. Opinions, unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories are not it, sorry.

My comments were based on facts. 

 

Conflict of interest - Amir's business selling products that compete with those he writes about

disingenuous “reviews,” - Read the original microRendu review and take in all that is subjective word salad describing how much he doesn't like it. Zero to do with objective data and everything to do with not liking the company and what it sells. 

measurements corrected much after the fact / damage has been done - Again, look at the microRendu review. Guy didn't know how to use the analyzer and berated the product even though it was his error causing the issues. The corrections came much later and in an addendum. The damage was done. 

 

When you have real facts, you can post in the objective forum. When you have an agenda and use "science" as a weapon you'll get called out. 

 

 

[Iving]

12 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

So much for an objective forum. You gents don't understand the meaning of the word. Opinions, unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories are not it, sorry.

 

Unsubstantiated assertions and conspiracy theories are coming from diverse quarters including the ostensibly objectivist. A wilful refusal to contemplate ordinary principles of logic should be added to your admirable list.

 

Objective-Fi is about what is measurable [in the empirical tradition] ... combined with drawing only what is logically legitimate from such observations.

 

Yes - we don't have Objective-Fi within our sights yet.

[charlesphoto]

17 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

So much for an objective forum. You gents don't understand the meaning of the word. Opinions, unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories are not it, sorry.

 

Pot calling the kettle black from where I sit.