Who's buying the UpTone Audio ISO REGEN?

[canali]

i'm also interested in the iso regen, but am unsure if i need it or not.
i'm already using the microrendu and lps...so am unsure if this piece will
truly make any significant difference or is just redundant.

my chain is pretty simple:
laptop as nas...microrendu, lps1, ifi micro idsd, roonlabs and tidal hifi
to focal alpha 50 powered desktop speakers.

 

[Thetiminator]

How are they able to design something they're unable to measure?

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...mpressions-kicked-off-with-some-measurements/

Don't ask me to explain it (I had girlfriends in school)....

The Regen was pound for pound the best upgrade I ever made, the first time digital was truly listenable in my system.

 

[Superdad]

I just wanna see measurements before anything!

Sure Jason. Here you go:


BEFORE:




AFTER:



And that measurement was taken at the end of a half-meter generic USB printer cable, not with the new 4-layer PCB-based, impedance controlled USPCB A>B Adapter that is included "free" with every ISO REGEN.

What matters more is what folks are already reporting about their experiences with the ISO REGEN:
ISO REGEN Listening Impressions
Those who have looked at a lot of eye-patterns remark that rarely have they ever seen such a clean one.

Cheers,

--Alex C.

 

[amirm]

Sure Jason. Here you go:


BEFORE:

View attachment 32637


AFTER:

View attachment 32639

And that measurement was taken at the end of a half-meter generic USB printer cable, not with the new 4-layer PCB-based, impedance controlled USPCB A>B Adapter that is included "free" with every ISO REGEN.

What matters more is what folks are already reporting about their experiences ...

Actually what matters is what happens to the output of the DAC, not the USB bus. We don't listen to USB. We listen to DAC analog output. Both eye patterns are amply clean to transmit USB data. A 10 picosecond reduction in jitter is not at all significant.

Do you have any measurements of DAC outputs with or without this device?

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

Actually what matters is what happens to the output of the DAC, not the USB bus. We don't listen to USB. We listen to DAC analog output. Both eye patterns are amply clean to transmit USB data. A 10 picosecond reduction in jitter is not at all significant.

Do you have any measurements of DAC outputs with or without this device?

Yes I agree. Listening impressions aside, how many of you stop to think about where the measurements are taken? In most dacs the measurements of jitter and noise, etc are all measured at the input of the DAC and in this case the latter half of the USB regen.

Not saying this product doesn't make a difference, but there is a lot that happens within a dac after it goes through the internal processing where the measurements truly matter for real world results and not to hit a certain marketing number.

 

[jkeny]

Yes I agree. Listening impressions aside, how many of you stop to think about where the measurements are taken? In most dacs the measurements of jitter and noise, etc are all measured at the input of the DAC and in this case the latter half of the USB regen.

Not saying this product doesn't make a difference, but there is a lot that happens within a dac after it goes through the internal processing where the measurements truly matter for real world results and not to hit a certain marketing number.

I don't know of anybody who listens to the DAC analogue output so if the criteria is only to measure what we listen to then surely it should be the loudspeaker output that is measured, no?
I wonder why that isn't deemed as the only measurement that matters? If a measurement difference can't be shown in the waveform coming out of a speaker then, by this logic, we can disregard any devices which don't show a difference. Right?

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

I don't know of anybody who listens to the DAC analogue output so if the criteria is only to measure what we listen to then surely it should be the loudspeaker output that is measured, no?
I wonder why that isn't deemed as the only measurement that matters? If a measurement difference can't be shown in the waveform coming out of a speaker then, by this logic, we can disregard any devices which don't show a difference. Right?

My point was aimed towards what a DAC is designed to do. The measurements taken at the input before it is processed vs the measurements of what happens before it does it.

Amir's comment which I piggybacked would be in line with your suggestion as to why would any measurements matter if not at the end point where we listen to.

This USB regen device while apparently making a difference before hitting the USB input may be redundant to what the DAC already does to the signal. This can measured at the output with and without the device in the stream. Measuring it before it hits the input doesn't necessarily call out to its measured performance at the output of the DAC.

 

[jkeny]

My point was aimed towards what a DAC is designed to do. The measurements taken at the input before it is processed vs the measurements of what happens before it does it.

A DAC is only one element in the playback chain & the point made by Amir & you agreed with was that the DAC analogue out is what is listened to - it's not. So you & he are suggesting that the DAC's internal processing could make any changes in the input signal to the DAC, moot as far as hearing an audible difference. So far, so good?

Now if we follow this justification to it's logical conclusion, then the only the measurement at the speaker output (what we really DO listen to) is the ONLY area that measurements should be taken, right?
So why don't we insist on these speaker output measurements as the criteria for evaluating all devices that are put in the playback chain?

You know the answer to this & the same answer applies to DAC output measurements - there is no clear set of measurements yet which characterises what we hear - measurements have along way to go to meet this simple criteria.

So, what are we left with? Listening & hopefully measurement techniques & further research into how hearing works to guide us towards measurements which are better aligned to charcaterise what we are hearing. Until then we limp along with bits & pieces of the puzzle but with the final arbiter being what we hear

Amir's comment which I piggybacked would be in line with your suggestion as to why would any measurements matter if not at the end point where we listen to.

But Amir's comment was selective & wrong. I was correcting it to the logical conclusion that at the heart of his statement - measure the waveform that we ACTUALLY listen to. We all know that it currently isn't feasible to expect this at the moment, much as we would all like it to be possible.

This USB regen device while apparently making a difference before hitting the USB input may be redundant to what the DAC already does to the signal.

It may be but measurements will not prove this one way or the other - only listening to it in a playback system will. So I find it disingenuous (but a nice soundbite for masses) the attempt at claiming that because we can't yet measure the difference that is audible, is a reason to dismiss the device. This is exactly Amir's position & by your agreement with him, seems to be yours

This can measured at the output with and without the device in the stream. Measuring it before it hits the input doesn't necessarily call out to its measured performance at the output of the DAC.

Again, I would point you to the fact that current measurements don't characterise what we hear - in time we are hopeful that we can find the relevant measurements but your & Amir's premise is wrong - the premise being that everything audible is measurable.

I know the stock answer will be that measurements are far more accurate & sensitive than measuring equipment. But again, I have to point out the logical flaw in this approach - judging our hearing against the strengths of measuring equipment - this is always going to find measuring equipment superior based on this frame of reference. But what if we look at hearing & judge measuring equipment according to the strengths of auditory perception? A simple example - what measuring equipment can pick out a conversation stream from among a lot of other conversation streams happening nearby, in a noisy room with lots of other audible disturbances happening simultaneously - a task most find simple enough.

And guess what, the reason that our playback systems exist is because we use our hearing to listen to & derive pleasure from it, not because they do or don't measure "well" whatever that means!

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see such measurements emerge in time & I'm sure they will but I'm not stuck limiting myself by what current inadequate measurements show or don't show - they served us well & still do but they also should not be used as a brake (or weapon) to restrict the industry moving forward & making audible advances in technology, even if it isn't currently measurable

 

[amirm]

I don't know of anybody who listens to the DAC analogue output so if the criteria is only to measure what we listen to then surely it should be the loudspeaker output that is measured, no?

A headphone output comes pretty close to what it produced by the DAC. But sure, go ahead and show in the output of speakers that such devices make a difference.

I wonder why that isn't deemed as the only measurement that matters? If a measurement difference can't be shown in the waveform coming out of a speaker then, by this logic, we can disregard any devices which don't show a difference. Right?

Definitely.

The reason I don't ask for that is because it would then include the distortions added by the amplifier and speakers and to the extent people use different versions of those, we don't want to bundle them in the measurements.

 

[jkeny]

A headphone output comes pretty close to what it produced by the DAC. But sure, go ahead and show in the output of speakers that such devices make a difference.

when you show the measureable & consistent differences on the output of speakers for the audio devices your company sells & show how these measurements correspond to what we hear with the various devices, then I'll begin to take your challenge for such measurements with some seriousness.

Definitely.

Great so you want to see measurements of speaker output - let's see them then

The reason I don't ask for that is because it would then include the distortions added by the amplifier and speakers and to the extent people use different versions of those, we don't want to bundle them in the measurements.

Oh dear, fail. All you have to do is use the same speakers, same room (or even anechoic chamber) same mic position & do comparative measurements to show differences. Talk about different configurations is just another red herring. Did you not say that this analogue waveform is what we hear so if we hear differences the measurements MUST show them, right - if the amp/speakers mask this then we couldn't hear differences, right?

So you have the great desire for this (based on your always asking others for such measurements of what we hear) & the equipment you say - show us the measured differences at speaker output for two reasonable quality DACs that sound different.

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

A DAC is only one element in the playback chain & the point made by Amir & you agreed with was that the DAC analogue out is what is listened to - it's not. So you & he are suggesting that the DAC's internal processing could make any changes in the input signal to the DAC, moot as far as hearing an audible difference. So far, so good?

Now if we follow this justification to it's logical conclusion, then the only the measurement at the speaker output (what we really DO listen to) is the ONLY area that measurements should be taken, right?
So why don't we insist on these speaker output measurements as the criteria for evaluating all devices that are put in the playback chain?

You know the answer to this & the same answer applies to DAC output measurements - there is no clear set of measurements yet which characterises what we hear - measurements have along way to go to meet this simple criteria.

So, what are we left with? Listening & hopefully measurement techniques & further research into how hearing works to guide us towards measurements which are better aligned to charcaterise what we are hearing. Until then we limp along with bits & pieces of the puzzle but with the final arbiter being what we hear


But Amir's comment was selective & wrong. I was correcting it to the logical conclusion that at the heart of his statement - measure the waveform that we ACTUALLY listen to. We all know that it currently isn't feasible to expect this at the moment, much as we would all like it to be possible.

It may be but measurements will not prove this one way or the other - only listening to it in a playback system will. So I find it disingenuous (but a nice soundbite for masses) the attempt at claiming that because we can't yet measure the difference that is audible, is a reason to dismiss the device. This is exactly Amir's position & by your agreement with him, seems to be yours Again, I would point you to the fact that current measurements don't characterise what we hear - in time we are hopeful that we can find the relevant measurements but your & Amir's premise is wrong - the premise being that everything audible is measurable.

I know the stock answer will be that measurements are far more accurate & sensitive than measuring equipment. But again, I have to point out the logical flaw in this approach - judging our hearing against the strengths of measuring equipment - this is always going to find measuring equipment superior based on this frame of reference. But what if we look at hearing & judge measuring equipment according to the strengths of auditory perception? A simple example - what measuring equipment can pick out a conversation stream from among a lot of other conversation streams happening nearby, in a noisy room with lots of other audible disturbances happening simultaneously - a task most find simple enough.

And guess what, the reason that our playback systems exist is because we use our hearing to listen to & derive pleasure from it, not because they do or don't measure "well" whatever that means!

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see such measurements emerge in time & I'm sure they will but I'm not stuck limiting myself by what current inadequate measurements show or don't show - they served us well & still do but they also should not be used as a brake (or weapon) to restrict the industry moving forward & making audible advances in technology, even if it isn't currently measurable

We are not talking measurements as an absolute. So far not good.

The topic of this discussion is the Uptone and for those that are measurement biased it is worth noting what improvements this product makes at the output of the DAC. You may not agree with this and that's fine. If I were looking to understand its impact and look to science to spell it out for me over my own ears, than I would want to know how it improves the SQ at the output of the DAC and not just know that it did "something" prior to the DAC output if the end result is the same measurement at the DAC output

Makes Sense?

Sound quality and our scientific understanding of it do not always go hand in hand from my point of view.

 

[jkeny]

We are not talking measurements as an absolute. So far not good.

Well, it can definitely be read that you & Amir are "talking measurements as an absolute" as you don't qualify it by saying that current measurements may not be sensitive enough or use the correct test signals or ..... There's no qualifiers that I see in Amir's position or your agreement with it up to now

The topic of this discussion is the Uptone and for those that are measurement biased it is worth noting what improvements this product makes at the output of the DAC.

Usually the first measurement taken on any device is at IT'S OWN output to characterise the difference in signal between input & output. One may wish to further characterise the effect of this change on downstream devices but that is often a luxury, not often afforded or asked. If we wished to characterise the effect of different microphones during the recording process would we demand measurements at the speaker output?

You may not agree with this and that's fine.

i don't agree with it because it's selective & wrong

If I were looking to understand its impact and look to science to spell it out for me over my own ears, than I would want to know how it improves the SQ at the output of the DAC and not just know that it did "something" prior to the DAC output if the end result is the same measurement at the DAC output

Well after having stated that measurements are not an absolute, you then state that they are now used "to understand its impact and look to science to spell it out for me over my own ears than I would want to know how it improves the SQ at the output of the DAC and not just know that it did "something" prior to the DAC output if the end result is the same measurement at the DAC output"!!

Do you see your inconsistency here?

No, as i stated you would be looking for how it affected the output at the speaker

Makes Sense?

Not really

Sound quality and our scientific understanding of it do not always go hand in hand from my point of view.

Absolutely & I would say that instead of the phrase "scientific understanding" I would substitute "current measurements"

 

[Elberoth]

We are not talking measurements as an absolute. So far not good.

The topic of this discussion is the Uptone and for those that are measurement biased it is worth noting what improvements this product makes at the output of the DAC. You may not agree with this and that's fine. If I were looking to understand its impact and look to science to spell it out for me over my own ears, than I would want to know how it improves the SQ at the output of the DAC and not just know that it did "something" prior to the DAC output if the end result is the same measurement at the DAC output

Makes Sense?

Sound quality and our scientific understanding of it do not always go hand in hand from my point of view.

Out of curiosity - do you believe cables make a difference ?

 

[jkeny]

Out of curiosity - do you believe cables make a difference ?

Well let's see Amir or BHF produce measurements of the analogue outputs that we really listen to first before we move onto the more difficult questions.
I'm sure there are many well regarded sources that are audibly different which it should be easy to show this difference on measurements from the speaker or headphone output
According to Amir & other who agree with him this should be the measurement demanded of all audio device manufacturers if they want to prove their device has any audible effect
It must be easy as Amir constantly demands it of others so I suggest he show how easy it is first.

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

Out of curiosity - do you believe cables make a difference ?

Of course. Everything put into the audio stream makes a difference.

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

Well let's see Amir or BHF produce measurements of the analogue outputs that we really listen to first before we move onto the more difficult questions.
I'm sure there are many well regarded sources that are audibly different which it should be easy to show this difference on measurements from the speaker or headphone output
According to Amir & other who agree with him this should be the measurement demanded of all audio device manufacturers if they want to prove their device has any audible effect
It must be easy as Amir constantly demands it of others so I suggest he show how easy it is first.

Amir might indulge this as he is certainly of the scientific community. I, on the other hand, do not care for such exercises

 

[jkeny]

Amir might indulge this as he is certainly of the scientific community. I, on the other hand, do not care for such exercises

OK, from your posts you seem to vacillate between believing in the absolutes of measurements at one moment & yet stating you don't believe they tell the whole truth - I was trying to find out which was your position?
By your posts you lend credence to Amir's pretensions to scientific credulity & that's a shame!

 

[Believe High Fidelity]

OK, from your posts you seem to vacillate between believing in the absolutes of measurements at one moment & yet stating you don't believe they tell the whole truth - I was trying to find out which was your position?
By your posts you lend credence to Amir's pretensions to scientific credulity & that's a shame!

Wrong on all accounts my friend...

I appreciate measurements for what they aim to accomplish and in a number of important aspects are very helpful to identify some performance aspects of audio quality without question. My calling out where the measurements are taken is just as important as the measurements themselves, to which you brought up a good point on measuring at the speaker output. I did not subscribe to measurements being absolute as it relates to performance or sound quality. On the Sith deal in absolutes

For example, jitter is a hot topic with regard to DACs. Many DAC manufacturers publish said measurements of jitter and do not disclose that the measurements taken are at the input of the dac and not the output. Calling attention to something important and believing it to the de facto standard are certainly not the same.

As far as Amir goes, I know how vested he is in working out the science in all things audio and recommendation to pursue this with him means that I have no interest in pursuing a discussion around the science in audio. It was not suggested as an endorsement in believing in everything he says. I dont have any interest in debating this now or ever. Personally I like Amir a lot, but I also understand the negativity of those who do not feel the same. To each his own.

Back to topic. If you want to continue your position on measurements I suggest starting a new thread.

 

[jkeny]

Your protestations now just don't square with what you posted before so I query which is your actual conviction
"If I were looking to understand its impact and look to science to spell it out for me over my own ears, than I would want to know how it improves the SQ at the output of the DAC and not just know that it did "something" prior to the DAC output if the end result is the same measurement at the DAC output"
You see the phrases "understand its impact" "look to science to spell it out for me" clearly state sthat you believe science (by which I think yo mean measurements) is going to tell you what audible impact this will have. You further emphasise this by "I would want to know how it improves the SQ at the output of the DAC" again you are stating that the measurements defines the improvement in SQ (sound quality) & again you are putting your belief in these measurements & that they will tell you when something hasn't changed the SQ "and not just know that it did "something" prior to the DAC output if the end result is the same measurement at the DAC output"

or this position
"I appreciate measurements for what they aim to accomplish and in a number of important aspects are very helpful to identify some performance aspects of audio quality without question."


I'm wondering what set of measurements you look to & what you feel they tell you about SQ as you seemed to suggest that you would turn to them ""If I were looking to understand its impact and look to science to spell it out for me over my own ears"?

The topic is about the measurements produced so "back on topic" is off-topic

 

[amirm]

The topic is about the measurements produced so "back on topic" is off-topic

The measurements produced do not in any way or shape correlate with how an audio system sounds. I pointed this out and asked for measurements that might, i.e. the output of the DAC.

Your position that we are not entitled to it is non sequitur. Let's have the data and then we can decide what it means. Are you some kind of industry spokesman aiming to tell consumers what information they should or should not have?