Who's buying the UpTone Audio ISO REGEN?

[pkane]

I disagree. A cleaner eye pattern I believe Swenson found resulted in lower power supply noise at the USB receiver PHY. Power supply noise can very easily translate into common-mode noise, just as easily as it could translate into jitter.

What you are missing is that I am simply asking for jitter measurement of ISO Regen. That's all I came here to do, not to argue about what might or might not be measurable.

John Swenson stated that there are three main issues he attempted to address with ISO Regen:

1) PG (Power/Ground) noise generated by the USB receiver itself.
2) leakage loops.
3) clock bleed through from other clocks in the system.

John believes, as I do, that all three manifest themselves as jitter:

My current thinking on USB interface is that there are at LEAST three things that can degrade the sound coming from a DAC. All of these work by increasing the jitter on the clock feeding the DAC chip(s). This can happen in two different ways: increasing the jitter of the local clock itself, or modifying how the DAC chip receives the clock, which effectively increases the jitter INSIDE the DAC chip.

So, I ask once again, is it really so unreasonable of me to ask for jitter measurement that demonstrates these effects?

 

[853guy]

I am not smart enough to have created it 853 guy ( BTW, you forgot to say "Hello Amir" this time). It is an expression with real meaning that is used in conversations, mostly in corporate world. In this case, my great boss at Sony told me that story with respect to lawyers wanting to put all kinds of terms in contracts that never come true. I deleted the lawyer reference to make it more politically acceptable.

Your boss did, did he? How nice. In this context, the black swan aphorism predates it by two millennia. Turned out there were black swans, despite everyone in the enlightened world declaring it could “never (be) true” for one-thousand five-hundred years. The phrase “black swan” has been reappropriated to indicate a fallacy of logic in which people mistake absence of evidence for evidence of absence, especially in cases in which the observer has domain-specific blindness (1).

Speaking specifically to your lawyer example, construing an ideology around “things that never come true” has resulted in the propagation of the ludic fallacy (a form of congruence bias), in which there’s an assumption that the unexpected may be predicted by extrapolating from variations in events based on past observations, especially when these events are presumed to represent samples from a normal distribution. History, however, has proven the belief in “things that never come true” to be remarkably fragile to outliers existing in the long tails of the bell curve, invisible as they are to those who (are blinded and) make those assumptions in the first place (2).

So again, if you’re going to quote little aphorisms, at least try and avoid the ones mistaking absence of evidence for evidence of absence.

853guy

(1) Most large corporations are the perfect example of institutionalised domain-specific blindness due to the averaging of information resulting in a lesser value of observation.

(2) For more, see the collapse and $180 billion bail out of AIG in 2008.

 

[amirm]

So again, if you’re going to quote little aphorisms, at least try and avoid the ones mistaking absence of evidence for evidence of absence.

So you hold hope that pink elephants are yet to be discovered?

 

[amirm]

'Strong' is entirely a figment of your own mind.

You have put your claws around pkane's neck and are not letting go. Is this the less strong version of you? If so, I fear when you ratchet it up!

I take the position of a scientist open to new observations - I note you've brought none. In science a new observation can overturn an earlier hypothesis. What I've been offering is my best fit hypothesis for the observations.

You haven't observed anything. You have thought of some theory. Observation would be in the form of objective measurements, or controlled listening tests. You and John are fighting tooth and nail against both.

Just because you can daydream about what could happen doesn't make you akin to a scientist. It is an insult to the word to equate the two.

 

[853guy]

So you hold hope that pink elephants are yet to be discovered?

No, I just try to eliminate any form of bias (in this case, the ludic fallacy/congruence bias) that would lead to generalisations or assumptions in which the averaging of information can only ever result in a lesser value of observation, and especially predictions of future events (or, in your words, things “that never come true”) in which the basis of the prediction is taken from a pool of lesser value observations.

Why?

Because an averaging of information (extrapolating from variations in events based on past observations, especially when these events are presumed to represent samples from a normal distribution) is extremely dangerous in the prediction of future events (1).

Lets say you go away for a month and ask me to look after your dog. You leave explicit instructions your dog must be given an average of a litre of water per day for the next thirty days in order to stay alive. You come back and your dog is dead. You’re furious. I say I did exactly what you asked and gave your dog thirty litres of water. I just did it all on the first day, not realising that by relying on an average, I predicted your dog would be fine for the next twenty-nine days as long as it was given the full amount of water on the first.

In other words, I make an assumption there’s zero mathematical probability your dog will die over a thirty-day period, provided I give him/her a total amount of thirty litres of water, completely ignoring the non-linear and inter-dependent (i.e. real world) values of ambient temperature, canine health and the associated risks of dehydration.

That is, given that future events are potentially and probably likely to be subject to variables not within the scope of prior experience (2), I don’t make assumptions about what may or may not be uncovered that has previously been hidden, and, especially when dealing with the perceptual functioning of an organ we are only really beginning to understand from a neurobiological point-of-view.

Again, if you want to share what you think you know, by all means, be my guest. But if you want to draw conclusions in which your basis of information is to mistake absence of evidence for evidence of absence, remind me not to invest in your life insurance scheme.

My best wishes to you and your dog,

853guy

(1) Again, if you’ve not, I invite you to read up on the “impossibility” of subprime loans that backed credit default swaps and collateralised debt obligations going to zero because it was outside the model of what had ever happened previously. Tell me, did your old boss at Sony also tell you to buy a house because house prices never fall in value?

(2) Lord Kelvin declared heavier-than-air flight to be impossible, proved wrong eight years later. Einstein said nuclear energy would be impossible, proved wrong eight years later. Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer declared superconductivity only possible below 30 Kelvin, proved wrong twenty-nine years later. The Poincaré problem, proposed in 1904 and declared “unsolvable”, solved 99 years later.

 

[853guy]

You have put your claws around pkane's neck and are not letting go. Is this the less strong version of you? If so, I fear when you ratchet it up!


You haven't observed anything. You have thought of some theory. Observation would be in the form of objective measurements, or controlled listening tests. You and John are fighting tooth and nail against both.

Just because you can daydream about what could happen doesn't make you akin to a scientist. It is an insult to the word to equate the two.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

Albert Einstein, scientist/person who thought of some theories.

 

[opus112]

What you are missing is that I am simply asking for jitter measurement of ISO Regen. That's all I came here to do, not to argue about what might or might not be measurable.

I don't see how I'm missing that, after all you stated that right at the start. You then said that a wad of cash could be very persuasive in getting what you want. But you stuck around nevertheless.

It seems to me that 'jitter' does not apply to the Regen itself so you'd need to attach a DAC in order to get a 'jitter' measurement. Then you're measuring the jitter of that particular DAC and the Regen becomes incidental.

John believes, as I do, that all three manifest themselves as jitter:

I happen to disagree with John - he seems not to have consideration of common-mode noise effects. That's not to say that jitter's unimportant, rather that its not the only important aspect.

So, I ask once again, is it really so unreasonable of me to ask for jitter measurement that demonstrates these effects?

I don't believe its unreasonable to ask initially, however it would be unreasonable to expect your request to be actioned by UpTone based on a request on a forum with no apparent justification for why you want a jitter measurement. Wouldn't you be better off entering into private correspondence with John Swenson?

 

[opus112]

You have put your claws around pkane's neck and are not letting go. Is this the less strong version of you? If so, I fear when you ratchet it up!

All in your mind Amir. I have well bitten fingernails for a start. You're simply quite unaware of how rich an imagination you have.

You haven't observed anything. You have thought of some theory. Observation would be in the form of objective measurements, or controlled listening tests. You and John are fighting tooth and nail against both.

Utter nonsense. See above.

 

[pkane]

It seems to me that 'jitter' does not apply to the Regen itself so you'd need to attach a DAC in order to get a 'jitter' measurement. Then you're measuring the jitter of that particular DAC and the Regen becomes incidental.

Please explain how you think that jitter spectrum might change at the output of a DAC when switching Regen in and out of the circuit, and how this change is caused primarily by the DAC and not by Regen.

I happen to disagree with John - he seems not to have consideration of common-mode noise effects. That's not to say that jitter's unimportant, rather that its not the only important aspect.

So your whole argument is based on a conjecture that you can't prove? Jitter is the primary distortion caused by noise in the digital transmission that doesn't result in bit flipping. If you have verifiable proof of your other theories, I'm all ears.

I don't believe its unreasonable to ask initially, however it would be unreasonable to expect your request to be actioned by UpTone based on a request on a forum with no apparent justification for why you want a jitter measurement. Wouldn't you be better off entering into private correspondence with John Swenson?

I believe I've given plenty of justification, but you're right, there's little point in continuing this argument here. We keep going in circles.

 

[opus112]

Please explain how you think that jitter spectrum might change at the output of a DAC when switching Regen in and out of the circuit, and how this change is caused primarily by the DAC and not by Regen.

I have no idea - I've said before that its my belief that Regen works by affecting leakage currents, not by virtue of reducing jitter.

Seems you've misunderstood me (and not for the first time, however this is a fairly subtle point) - the way that Regen's changes might get turned into jitter is going to be DAC-specific. If we go along with what Swenson says about jitter, then the precise architecture of the interconnections within the DAC are going to determine the effect that Regen has on jitter. In other words, some DACs (the less well designed ones I'd hazard) will benefit more than others from Regen's insertion.

So your whole argument is based on a conjecture that you can't prove?

Perhaps you've missed something fundamental. Only math is about proving things, science is about falsification. Not read any Popper ?

Jitter is the primary distortion caused by noise in the digital transmission that doesn't result in bit flipping.

Now you're just repeating yourself. I agree we're just going around in circles, most certainly time to stop.

Now, how long is it going to take to extract my claws from your jugular vein do you think?

 

[pkane]

Perhaps you've missed something fundamental. Only math is about proving things, science is about falsification. Not read any Popper ?

OK, now we are really going off the deep end. I'm out of this discussion until there's something substantive being shared related to ISO Regen.

 

[bibo01]

...

But yes more data is better than less. It would be great if someone could show other type of measurements that show correlation with audible effects.

In the original thread about Regen I did publish measurements that show correlation with audible effects. In one DAC (MSB Analog) there was a slight improvement, in another DAC (M2Tech Young), a slight worsening.
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...B-Conditioners&p=347620&viewfull=1#post347620

I haven't got an ISO Regen to test yet.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Jitter is the primary distortion caused by noise in the digital transmission that doesn't result in bit flipping. If you have verifiable proof of your other theories, I'm all ears.

This is an interesting claim. It seems in some cases noise can enter through the digital lines and be superior to jitter. http://archimago.blogspot.pt/2013/02/measurement-asus-xonar-essence-one.html

It would be a great system to try the ISO REGEN in both cases!

Also IMHO there is still a lot to be debated concerning the audibility of jitter - how do jitter measurements effectively correlate with sound quality in absolute bellow a certain value? We all know high jitter is audible, what is the threshold of audibility?

 

[opus112]

The fallacy with that measurement is its just looking at audio band noise. If there's a bump within the audio band, chances are there's a much bigger bump in ultrasonic noise. What appears in the 20-20k band is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[amirm]

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

Albert Einstein, scientist/person who thought of some theories.

He also said: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”


You must think his comment about the Universe must be wrong to believe two dudes who have no professional or educational experience in this field, no published papers, no measurements of their own, no data they have gathered, no patents, no nothing, telling you theories of what could be harming your digital audio.

 

[amirm]

The fallacy with that measurement is its just looking at audio band noise. If there's a bump within the audio band, chances are there's a much bigger bump in ultrasonic noise. What appears in the 20-20k band is just the tip of the iceberg.

Love to see such measurements and proof of their audibility. Or is this another theory we must believe at face value?

 

[amirm]

Also IMHO there is still a lot to be debated concerning the audibility of jitter - how do jitter measurements effectively correlate with sound quality in absolute bellow a certain value? We all know high jitter is audible, what is the threshold of audibility?

The question has no answer because in itself it embodies a mistake about the measure jitter, and how our hearing works. To determine if jitter is audible, you must characterize it spectrum. That is why I always show its spectrum rather than a number. Once you do, then you can apply psychoacoustic analysis that tells us the JND (just noticeable difference) of audibility. What is below that is not audible.

Let me spoil the news for you, the levels we see, even elevated ones fall below thresholds established based on listening tests.

I look at Jitter not because it is necessarily an audible problem, but because it separates the well-engineered products from an online hobbyist who decided one day to get into building audio devices, with no measurement or design experience to verify its performance. If you are going to spend big money on high-end product, at least make sure it is not thrown away and poor engineering.

 

[opus112]

Love to see such measurements and proof of their audibility.

You appear to be labouring under the same misapprehension of science as pkane.

Or is this another theory we must believe at face value?

No requirement to believe anything I say. Rather evaluate it for yourself. Go observe measurements made of noise in similar situations where the bandwidth extends beyond mere audio - I recall Exasound had one.

 

[853guy]

He also said: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”


You must think his comment about the Universe must be wrong to believe two dudes who have no professional or educational experience in this field, no published papers, no measurements of their own, no data they have gathered, no patents, no nothing, telling you theories of what could be harming your digital audio.

(Bolding mine)

Really? Is this where we’ve got to already?

Didn’t I just give my reasons why I try and eliminate any form of bias that could lead to generalisations or assumptions in which the averaging of information leads only to a lesser value of observations? (1)

And yet you then use an Einstein quote as the underlying premise for making wholly speculative assumptions about what I “must” think?

C’mon, Amir. I'd like to think you’re better than the arrogance and/or stupidity it would take to make assumptions about someone you’ve never met, and especially, what they “must” think, believe, or do. But then, believing you're better than that would be an assumption on my part - certainly, when it comes to the possibility you might be arrogant and/or stupid, I should withhold judgement.

And just to be clear, what I may believe or not believe another sentient individual thinks or does not think, about anything, can neither cause me harm nor benefit me in any way, let alone “harm (my) digital audio”. (2)

However, (and perhaps unlike you - I cannot know) I remain open to what I may learn from both those who appear wise but are foolish, and those who appear foolish but are wise, irrespective of their tenure at Microsoft or three Emmy awards, because as I keep repeating in my discussions with you, the elimination of bias is a necessary prerequisite for ensuring I do not mistake absence of evidence for evidence of absence, fall into domain-specific blindness and draw conclusions that only serve to reinforce old consonant ideas at the expense of the accumulation of new dissonant ones, especially in cases in which those new ones render that same said previously gained knowledge as incomplete or fallacious. (3) (4)

What do you do?

853guy

(1) Why yes, I did!

(2) I mean, how utterly ridiculous. Hahahahahahahahahaaaaa....

(3) For more on selective exposure (seeking out consonant information and avoidance of dissonant information), see: P. Williams, M. L. Kern, L. Waters (2016); D. Frey (1986); S. M. Smith, L. R. Fabrigar, M. E. Norris (2008), A. F. Hayes (2013). I provide these not for yours or anyone else's enlightenment, but to remind me that I can only ever think I know anything, and beyond that lies an infinitude of knowledge beyond my grasp, much of which will remain that way, no matter how much I try and convince myself it may be possible to accumulate it all in one lifetime.

(4) Just for perspective, there's been sixty years of research on selective exposure. The research on packet noise and its impact on USB audio...? You tell me.

 

[Legolas]

Hang on guys. REALITY CHECK!!!!! We are discussing a small USB clean up device, not somebody's end of life care. I repeat, try the thing, if it floats your boat (sounds better to you) keep it. If not sell it or return it. Don't continue this prolonged pointless argument with longer and longer quotes from really clever people (Einstein) and try to give your various arguments weight. In all cases with audio gear, I take measurements with a pinch of salt, and listen to the thing instead. You know, your might find your ears may well tell you more than some scope or graph will, believe it or not.......