• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Uptone ISO Regen Review and Measurements

OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
Yes, I will probably get a next gen i7. For this interim period, I took advantage of the package deal on fry's

upload_2017-8-12_19-31-43.png


It may be my imagination but the system so far feels a bit sluggish compared to the older i7 I had in there. So having some buyer's remorse for going with i5.
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,068
Likes
16,598
Location
Central Fl
It may be my imagination but the system so far feels a bit sluggish compared to the older i7 I had in there. So having some buyer's remorse for going with i5.
Dang, sluggish doing what, you calculating the universe?
 

Palladium

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
630
Likes
769
You should have went with AMD Ryzen 1700 non-X. I heard it's more musically sounding than Intel. ;)
 

firedog

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
378
Likes
642
So the excuse put forward by Firedog doesn't hold:

View attachment 8123

I have done it and my work stands and pretty concrete evidence of passing such tests. I would have easily passed that test in front of 1000 people watching me do it.

Note that the test had signal processing countermeasures to make all but impossible to pass it using computer analysis. And I did not resort to any such methods.

So just as having the instrumentation and experience to use them to analyze products, I am offering the same in subjective analysis in controlled testing.

View attachment 8124

Actually it does -- very much so according to accepted audio science. By your logic we should not prescribe any medicine to anyone because no test shows that it works for people outside of the test.

But sure, we may not be able to get 100% there but by trying, we can get much closer to it than not attempting. If we duplicate their audio setup and with skilled listeners we can't hear the difference, then it would put their statements in fair amount of doubt.

Bottom line here is to make progress and do so with data.

Amir-

First of all, taking my posts from a different forum in a different context, editing them, and then posting them and responding to them is at best impolite, and I would say with all due respect, sort of immature and even a bit obnoxious in my opinion.
Other than that, you seem to have missed my point in both cases, which makes it even worse.

First point, was that trained listeners - at least some individuals - have been shown to be able to differentiate between hi-res and Redbook, and also between moderate and low levels of jitter. In spite of that, it is regularly claimed that both of these are "inaudible differences" and that "science" proves it. Note that I didn't claim that YOU said it or that anyone in this discussion said it. But look around the net and you will see that this claim is regularly made. And when individuals claim to have passed such tests the tests get derided as "improper" - because they "can't be true".
At CA I said that in response to what was said by another poster who made broad generalizations, about so called "subjectivists" vs "objectivists". My point was that both camps engage in denial, not just subjectivists.

I wasn't making an excuse for anything or referring to you or your tests. So please stop using my posts elsewhere as a fake straw man argument for you to score points with on your forum.

Second, your analogy about medical testing "Actually it does -- very much so according to accepted audio science. By your logic we should not prescribe any medicine to anyone because no test shows that it works for people outside of the test."

is a totally false analogy and doesn't show much understanding of the basics of scientific testing.

Proper medical testing uses large numbers of people randomly chosen. Control groups. Confirmation by other tests.

You haven't done any of this, so there is no analogy. If a medicine was tested on 6 not randomly chosen people by one tester, I wouldn't accept the results and neither would you.

That isn't a criticism of you or your testing. I do understand that you are one of the few doing such testing. But you need to stop giving your results a significance greater than what they have. You can believe them all you want, but they don't rise to the level of "scientific proof". They rise to the level of a "serious indication" or "evidence that needs to be taken into account and disputed" by those who claim otherwise. Not more than that.
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
snip.....
First point, was that trained listeners - at least some individuals - have been shown to be able to differentiate between hi-res and Redbook, and also between moderate and low levels of jitter. In spite of that, it is regularly claimed that both of these are "inaudible differences" and that "science" proves it. Note that I didn't claim that YOU said it or that anyone in this discussion said it. But look around the net and you will see that this claim is regularly made. And when individuals claim to have passed such tests the tests get derided as "improper" - because they "can't be true".
At CA I said that in response to what was said by another poster who made broad generalizations, about so called "subjectivists" vs "objectivists". My point was that both camps engage in denial, not just subjectivists.
snip..............

Could you specify or link to those if possible. I don't know of any on jitter.

On hires vs redbook there are always, in the ones I know, caveats. And that is okay, just wish to know which ones you speak of.

There is one where hires downsampled was detected vs hires, but not native redbook vs hires. Seems likely the downsampling is what was audible. There are the MQA related results, but they also include poor dither practice and unusually steep filtering, and point to a very weak effect. There was another where DSD was detected vs 48 khz, but not detected vs 44 khz which seems as if something odd must have been going on.

I don't know of any showing jitter being detectable except at very high levels. Would be most interested in those results.

As for Amir copying and responding here, he isn't allowed to post at CA. I don't know the full background to that.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Amir-

First of all, taking my posts from a different forum in a different context, editing them, and then posting them and responding to them is at best impolite, and I would say with all due respect, sort of immature and even a bit obnoxious in my opinion.
Other than that, you seem to have missed my point in both cases, which makes it even worse.

First point, was that trained listeners - at least some individuals - have been shown to be able to differentiate between hi-res and Redbook, and also between moderate and low levels of jitter. In spite of that, it is regularly claimed that both of these are "inaudible differences" and that "science" proves it. Note that I didn't claim that YOU said it or that anyone in this discussion said it. But look around the net and you will see that this claim is regularly made. And when individuals claim to have passed such tests the tests get derided as "improper" - because they "can't be true".
At CA I said that in response to what was said by another poster who made broad generalizations, about so called "subjectivists" vs "objectivists". My point was that both camps engage in denial, not just subjectivists.

I wasn't making an excuse for anything or referring to you or your tests. So please stop using my posts elsewhere as a fake straw man argument for you to score points with on your forum.

Second, your analogy about medical testing "Actually it does -- very much so according to accepted audio science. By your logic we should not prescribe any medicine to anyone because no test shows that it works for people outside of the test."

is a totally false analogy and doesn't show much understanding of the basics of scientific testing.

Proper medical testing uses large numbers of people randomly chosen. Control groups. Confirmation by other tests.

You haven't done any of this, so there is no analogy. If a medicine was tested on 6 not randomly chosen people by one tester, I wouldn't accept the results and neither would you.

That isn't a criticism of you or your testing. I do understand that you are one of the few doing such testing. But you need to stop giving your results a significance greater than what they have. You can believe them all you want, but they don't rise to the level of "scientific proof". They rise to the level of a "serious indication" or "evidence that needs to be taken into account and disputed" by those who claim otherwise. Not more than that.
If you actually read the very first post in this thread you will quickly realise no bogus significance is being claimed .. there's plenty of " in my opinion " and a open invitation to scrutinise the testing.

Hes tested and given his opinion based on those results, offered complete transparency to make sure the tests are as correct as possible. So amirs test informed his opinion and he's offered both up for challenge.

I'm not sure why you seem to be creating a issue where non exists in this regard, it seems unnecessarily pedantic tbh .

lets be sensible, medical trials for drugs to be used on humanoids and testing a PSU for a USB widget are two strikingly different things, the level of jeopardy is very different. again Iv no idea why you seem to want to drill into a perfectly reasonable analogy and get pedantic about it.

Other than that I can see why taking a post from elsewhere might give a slight grievance, it's a kind of violation in a way just it's not as all content posted publicly like this is just that, public. Still one maintaining a sense of ownership over their words and feeling attached to them as a part of their own self or property is normal.

How you translate that feeling and prescribe amir to be immature, obnoxious in his actions is again beyond my understanding. Impolite, I can understand but given the context of this being the Internet/social media I'd recommend a more robust sentimentality be considered.

I used to feel aggrieved when my posts got quoted line by line so multiple quotes in a retort. I found it rather aggressive, like every sentence is under attack and impolite to say the least. I guess over time I just got used to the feeling and now with all the aggravation I get doing this job I long for the days of a simple multi quoted retort. :D
 

firedog

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
378
Likes
642
Could you specify or link to those if possible. I don't know of any on jitter.

On hires vs redbook there are always, in the ones I know, caveats. And that is okay, just wish to know which ones you speak of.

There is one where hires downsampled was detected vs hires, but not native redbook vs hires. Seems likely the downsampling is what was audible. There are the MQA related results, but they also include poor dither practice and unusually steep filtering, and point to a very weak effect. There was another where DSD was detected vs 48 khz, but not detected vs 44 khz which seems as if something odd must have been going on.

I don't know of any showing jitter being detectable except at very high levels. Would be most interested in those results.

As for Amir copying and responding here, he isn't allowed to post at CA. I don't know the full background to that.
Answered you at CA as best as I could at the moment. I'm not going to run two parallel conversations and repeat myself constantly at two sites.
 

firedog

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
378
Likes
642
If you actually read the very first post in this thread you will quickly realise no bogus significance is being claimed .. there's plenty of " in my opinion " and a open invitation to scrutinise the testing.

Hes tested and given his opinion based on those results, offered complete transparency to make sure the tests are as correct as possible. So amirs test informed his opinion and he's offered both up for challenge.

I'm not sure why you seem to be creating a issue where non exists in this regard, it seems unnecessarily pedantic tbh .

lets be sensible, medical trials for drugs to be used on humanoids and testing a PSU for a USB widget are two strikingly different things, the level of jeopardy is very different. again Iv no idea why you seem to want to drill into a perfectly reasonable analogy and get pedantic about it.

Other than that I can see why taking a post from elsewhere might give a slight grievance, it's a kind of violation in a way just it's not as all content posted publicly like this is just that, public. Still one maintaining a sense of ownership over their words and feeling attached to them as a part of their own self or property is normal.

How you translate that feeling and prescribe amir to be immature, obnoxious in his actions is again beyond my understanding. Impolite, I can understand but given the context of this being the Internet/social media I'd recommend a more robust sentimentality be considered.

I used to feel aggrieved when my posts got quoted line by line so multiple quotes in a retort. I found it rather aggressive, like every sentence is under attack and impolite to say the least. I guess over time I just got used to the feeling and now with all the aggravation I get doing this job I long for the days of a simple multi quoted retort. :D

I'm not creating an issue. Amir and others here claim that the tests prove what Amir is saying under the mantle of science. I 100% disagree. He is doing science like tests that don't rise to the level of scientific proof, as he and others claim. He shouldn't make that inaccurate and unscientific claim.

Amir brought up the medical analogy, not me. Again, I don't think it is a "perfectly reasonable" analogy. It is exactly the kind of false analogy that are used in these kind of forums to prove that one side in a discussion has "science" on its side. Sorry, no, and that analogy certainly doesn't prove the claim.

I'm not just aggrieved b/c Amir repeatedly has taken posts from elsewhere and quoted them here. I don't know if he can post at CA or not, and I don't think it is relevant. I do take exception to the fact that he does this while taking what I've posted elsewhere, edited it, presented it out of context, and distorted it's meaning, all in order to score debate points. And yes, I think it is childish.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
I'm not creating an issue. Amir and others here claim that the tests prove what Amir is saying under the mantle of science. I 100% disagree. He is doing science like tests that don't rise to the level of scientific proof, as he and others claim. He shouldn't make that inaccurate and unscientific claim.

Amir brought up the medical analogy, not me. Again, I don't think it is a "perfectly reasonable" analogy. It is exactly the kind of false analogy that are used in these kind of forums to prove that one side in a discussion has "science" on its side. Sorry, no, and that analogy certainly doesn't prove the claim.

I'm not just aggrieved b/c Amir repeatedly has taken posts from elsewhere and quoted them here. I don't know if he can post at CA or not, and I don't think it is relevant. I do take exception to the fact that he does this while taking what I've posted elsewhere, edited it, presented it out of context, and distorted it's meaning, all in order to score debate points. And yes, I think it is childish.
Umm, tbh you've completely lost me and I just don't see what your on about but never mind. You are of course welcome to your POV .

Oh, I appreciate the ' your childish , immature, obnoxious' etc then the " this isn't a criticism of you or your testing" .. that's a classic :D

No offensive but with the greatest respect and believe me when I say Iv been a devout fan of yours for some time, in fact my first child is named after you.... but your a arsehole :D ( and yes I named by first child arsehole , just in case you were thinking I was disingenuous somehow :D)

Thanks for the laugh firedog :D

It's likely the brothers will ask for less rhetoric and more data/evidence don't be offended this is a data/measurement forum .
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
I'm not creating an issue. Amir and others here claim that the tests prove what Amir is saying under the mantle of science. I 100% disagree. He is doing science like tests that don't rise to the level of scientific proof, as he and others claim. He shouldn't make that inaccurate and unscientific claim.

.

Sorry but unless you have some actual technical rebuttal of the tests you are just blowing hot air. Please feel free to technically challenge the tests. If you don't have the knowledge to do so, then you clearly do not have the knowledge to disagree with the results.

The floor is open to you to technically challenge the data.
 
Last edited:

Jinjuku

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,278
Likes
1,180
First point, was that trained listeners - at least some individuals - have been shown to be able to differentiate between hi-res and Redbook, and also between moderate and low levels of jitter. In spite of that, it is regularly claimed that both of these are "inaudible differences" and that "science" proves it. Note that I didn't claim that YOU said it or that anyone in this discussion said it. But look around the net and you will see that this claim is regularly made. And when individuals claim to have passed such tests the tests get derided as "improper" - because they "can't be true".

I don't know what you are talking about. AVS had a thread where Scott Wilkinson and Mark Waldrep produced Redbook and 24/192 files. Some could tell the difference. There was one guitar track that I could tell apart the formats but didn't have a preference one way or the other.

Archimago is doing a blind MQA vs non MQA. Open till September 8th for participation. He'll post there results publicly
 

Jinjuku

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,278
Likes
1,180
I'm not creating an issue. Amir and others here claim that the tests prove what Amir is saying under the mantle of science. I 100% disagree. He is doing science like tests that don't rise to the level of scientific proof, as he and others claim. He shouldn't make that inaccurate and unscientific claim.

?? It's under the mantle of MEASUREMENT. Feel free to bring your own.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
Dummy question, if they regenerates the bits, how they get rid of the old ones?:oops:
If you look under the device in long term listening, i.e. after a few months, you will find a puddle of discarded bits! :D
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
I'm not creating an issue. Amir and others here claim that the tests prove what Amir is saying under the mantle of science. I 100% disagree.
Science? No way. We are not making science. I am measuring equipment. That is part of reviewing of a lot of equipment from cameras to computers. It is not about science. We are trying to see if the improvements claimed for product hold water when subjected to objective tools to measure the same. It is verification or disqualification of marketing claims.

Folks that say devices do things that cannot be measured, explained, etc. are the ones attempting to make new science. Problem is, they only state such things with words. That is the faulty science you want to go after. Not what I and other reviewers world over do day in and day out.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
At CA I said that in response to what was said by another poster who made broad generalizations, about so called "subjectivists" vs "objectivists". My point was that both camps engage in denial, not just subjectivists.
No, let me tell you what you are really doing there with those posts: you are impeding progress. Through FUD and word arguments, you continue to act as the PR person for the product in question, hoping further investigation either doesn't happen, or if it does happen, it is put in doubt. That, I don't appreciate.

I have done a ton of work here that eventually resulted in consensus with the product manufacturer. Did you take back your statement for a year or more saying I don't know how to test products?

No, instead another attempt is made to throw yourself in front of the bus, hoping we are not successful in assessing the subjective value of this product. We need to quiz the people who clearly hear such differences. You must not object to this as you did on CA forum.

So help us figure out what was heard subjectively with this product. I like to see a list of tracks that shows the difference night and day. I like to know if my DAC is good enough to hear that (iFi micro iDSD). And my Stax reference headphones.

Going and posting more doubt and word arguments will get more arrows thrown at you and calling it for what it is. And whatever it is that you are doing, is the farthest thing from "science." Let's agree on that.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Amir is the kind of scientist you need if your ambition is limited to faking the moon landing and have it made up in a studio , if you actually want to go to the moon best task someone else. :D Probably best look outside of the audiophile world though else you will end up with only a dodgy radio broadcast as evidence of the 'landing' . :D
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,068
Likes
16,598
Location
Central Fl
Amir is the kind of scientist you need if your ambition is limited to faking the moon landing and have it made up in a studio , if you actually want to go to the moon best task someone else. :D Probably best look outside of the audiophile world though else you will end up with only a dodgy radio broadcast as evidence of the 'landing' . :D
He is awful good with the camera though. :)
 
Top Bottom