• 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 LPS-1 Linear Power Supply Review and Measurements

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
Well, you'd have to flip it more than twice...

And 60/40 should be a pretty common result for 5 flips.

3 heads 2 tails = 60/40

homersimpson-donaldtrump.jpg
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,068
Likes
16,598
Location
Central Fl
Well BE718, I suppose that is your interpretation. I'm keen for open discussion - hence my question.
Well the discussion you will get from Uptone will revolve around claims of efficacy with zero evidence to back it up, Go for it though
It's always the same fairy-tale stories. Superdad and the rest of the subjective clan will make claims of having thousands of customers that will testify to the improved SQ of their widgets and devices. So does David Copperfield, "that 747 disappeared right off the runway, I seen it with my own two eyes". But when it comes to ever supplying any supporting evidence they scatter like some insects do running from the light. They've been invited over and over at CA to participate in some bias controlled listening tests but no way Jose, that ain't never gonna happen.
 

Jinjuku

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,278
Likes
1,180
How many tries?

Does the randomness of coin flipping effect the eventual outcome? You let me know how many times you have a flip a coin to get something other than a ~ 50/50 difference.
 

danadam

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
956
Likes
1,496
You let me know how many times you have a flip a coin to get something other than a ~ 50/50 difference.
As far as I can tell the discussion is about 60/40 not 50/50. You said that with a coin flip you could do as good or better than 60/40. I'm not a statistician but it seems to me that this may be true with 10 trials, but with let's say 40 trials the probability of getting 24 or more successes is only ~13%. So it very much depends on the number of trials.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
Well BE718, I suppose that is your interpretation. I'm keen for open discussion - hence my question.

A related question, which has been touched upon but perhaps not addressed specifically: although the Rendu products (+/- the LPS-1 or similar) have been shown here to (at best) have no discernible effect on SQ (at least according to the particular set of measurements made here), is it possible that the net effect of removing a "noisy" PC from the audio rack outweighs all this and hence the Rendu provides some benefit this way? Amir had used his laptop in the experiments and so I suspect the answer to my question here will be "no", just keen to have this confirmed.
First welcome to the forum. :) Second, thanks for the reasonable way you are asking your question.

"Noise" is the easiest thing to measure with instruments. And that is what I have been showing. That other than a single, poorly designed DAC (Schiit Modi 2), all other DACs are so immune to noise from the PC that no extra cleaning of either USB bus or power supply makes any difference. The measurements have been so accurate as to show that the external power supply that these devices can generate noise that was not there at the start.

All of this points to no value unfortunately in this class of products even if your ears were as sensitive as our instruments.
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
Does the randomness of coin flipping effect the eventual outcome? You let me know how many times you have a flip a coin to get something other than a ~ 50/50 difference.
First welcome to the forum. :) Second, thanks for the reasonable way you are asking your question.

"Noise" is the easiest thing to measure with instruments. And that is what I have been showing. That other than a single, poorly designed DAC (Schiit Modi 2), all other DACs are so immune to noise from the PC that no extra cleaning of either USB bus or power supply makes any difference. The measurements have been so accurate as to show that the external power supply that these devices can generate noise that was not there at the start.

All of this points to no value unfortunately in this class of products even if your ears were as sensitive as our instruments.


You don't understand statistics and its application. Your question reveals this.
 

bennetng

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,634
Likes
1,692
I attached a simple html app to simulate brute forced ABX. The questions and answers are randomly generated and every time browser is refreshed a new set of results will come out. Here is a sample result:

6/10 or above in 1000 tests: 428
7/10 or above in 1000 tests: 187
8/10 or above in 1000 tests: 51
9/10 or above in 1000 tests: 9
10/10 in 1000 tests: 1

Which means in this particular simulation, a wild guess without listening can yield 428 positive results in 1000 tests with 10 trials if 6/10 or above is considered as "pass". Also, it is not uncommon to see zero in 10/10 since the chance is very low.
 

Attachments

  • abx.zip
    548 bytes · Views: 140

extracampine

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2017
Messages
9
Likes
0
I think this is called a tangent :) And thanks Amir for confirming your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps if that PC that was being removed from the listening room had a fan based cooling system which was audible, THEN there would be some benefit to the MicroRendu :)

I find it fascinating that there can exist such a chasm between the views of those on some of the other audio forums, compared with those on more scientifically oriented forums such as this one. I broached the subject on the Roon forums (great software BTW) and the reply I received (from a user I didn't know) was somewhat adversarial.

A common approach from the "scientific" camp in attempting to bridge this gap, as far as I can tell, is to suggest that the audiophile engage in double-blind tests of the equipment. I agree that this would make sense. I think it is done quite a lot, though I imagine that there are those (maybe more linked with manufacturers or sellers) that might not be keen on this option?

The other issue though is to ask the scientific camp if they have "tried" the item in question and attempted to discern any difference with their own ears rather than with instruments. Of course this opens up the area of psychoacoustics, but this can be remedied with the double blind method. In addition, it tends to be stated that a sufficiently "resolving" (which equates to a large extent with cost) system is required to hear the differences. So we would require someone with a scientific approach, expensive hifi equipment, reasonable hearing and of course an open mind. I wonder if they exist :D
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,521
Likes
37,050
I think this is called a tangent :) And thanks Amir for confirming your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps if that PC that was being removed from the listening room had a fan based cooling system which was audible, THEN there would be some benefit to the MicroRendu :)

I find it fascinating that there can exist such a chasm between the views of those on some of the other audio forums, compared with those on more scientifically oriented forums such as this one. I broached the subject on the Roon forums (great software BTW) and the reply I received (from a user I didn't know) was somewhat adversarial.

A common approach from the "scientific" camp in attempting to bridge this gap, as far as I can tell, is to suggest that the audiophile engage in double-blind tests of the equipment. I agree that this would make sense. I think it is done quite a lot, though I imagine that there are those (maybe more linked with manufacturers or sellers) that might not be keen on this option?

The other issue though is to ask the scientific camp if they have "tried" the item in question and attempted to discern any difference with their own ears rather than with instruments. Of course this opens up the area of psychoacoustics, but this can be remedied with the double blind method. In addition, it tends to be stated that a sufficiently "resolving" (which equates to a large extent with cost) system is required to hear the differences. So we would require someone with a scientific approach, expensive hifi equipment, reasonable hearing and of course an open mind. I wonder if they exist :D

Well suppose that person did exist. As a starting point. So what happens when their path of investigation leads them one way rather than another. The result is then used to accuse. Not so good hearing after all, gear that isn't resolving or becoming closed minded. Neat circle of logic.
 

extracampine

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2017
Messages
9
Likes
0
The result is then used to accuse.
Well, of course some might accuse. But that should by no means deter from this method. There will always be those that eschew a particular method or approach in the search for truth and understanding, but that shouldn't hinder the search.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
I think this is called a tangent :) And thanks Amir for confirming your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps if that PC that was being removed from the listening room had a fan based cooling system which was audible, THEN there would be some benefit to the MicroRendu :)

I find it fascinating that there can exist such a chasm between the views of those on some of the other audio forums, compared with those on more scientifically oriented forums such as this one. I broached the subject on the Roon forums (great software BTW) and the reply I received (from a user I didn't know) was somewhat adversarial.

A common approach from the "scientific" camp in attempting to bridge this gap, as far as I can tell, is to suggest that the audiophile engage in double-blind tests of the equipment. I agree that this would make sense. I think it is done quite a lot, though I imagine that there are those (maybe more linked with manufacturers or sellers) that might not be keen on this option?

The other issue though is to ask the scientific camp if they have "tried" the item in question and attempted to discern any difference with their own ears rather than with instruments. Of course this opens up the area of psychoacoustics, but this can be remedied with the double blind method. In addition, it tends to be stated that a sufficiently "resolving" (which equates to a large extent with cost) system is required to hear the differences. So we would require someone with a scientific approach, expensive hifi equipment, reasonable hearing and of course an open mind. I wonder if they exist :D

Well as an example I bought a Regen and couldnt hear a difference with any DAC I tried it with. I then measured it and found it caused increased noise on the DAC output. 8 kHz usb packet noise. This was caused by a ground lift resistor they had "subjectively" decided to insert in the product. This noise was confirmed by Amir and others.

I think its fair to say there is a bit of history here and Uptone have been engaged with for a few years. Nothing compelling has come out of it.

Unfortunately the truth is that there is a lot of hifi foo out there and people fall victim to psuedo science marketing all too easily, hence the chasm between this and some other forums. As soon as you put people under controls the magic trinkets are suddenly not so magic anymore.
 

Jakob1863

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
573
Likes
155
Location
Germany
I attached a simple html app to simulate brute forced ABX. The questions and answers are randomly generated and every time browser is refreshed a new set of results will come out. Here is a sample result:

6/10 or above in 1000 tests: 428
7/10 or above in 1000 tests: 187
8/10 or above in 1000 tests: 51
9/10 or above in 1000 tests: 9
10/10 in 1000 tests: 1

Which means in this particular simulation, a wild guess without listening can yield 428 positive results in 1000 tests with 10 trials if 6/10 or above is considered as "pass". Also, it is not uncommon to see zero in 10/10 since the chance is very low.

Which is a different situation. Doing a 10 trial ABX and repeating it 1000 times isn´t the same as to ask what number of trials it needs to get a significant result when delivering 60% correct answers.
In the case of a 10 trial ABX the probability to get 6 correct answers by random guessing is p = 0.377 , so the expected value to get this result when doing the same test 1000 times is 377 tests with this result.

But otoh if you do a 80 trial ABX then you´ll have a significant result on SL=0.05 level if the participant got 60% correct answers.
P(48 l 80) = 0.046 .

Btw, doing an ABX without training of the participant isn´t a good idea as it is known that the internal mental processes are more involving compared to A-B tests.
Doing such tests without positive controls isn´t a good idea.
Doing an 10 trial ABX isn´t a good idea unless the detection ability of the participant isn´t really high (means > 90% ) otherwise the probability of committing an error of the second kind (means to not reject the null hypothesis although it is false) will be way to large.
 

bennetng

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,634
Likes
1,692
Which is a different situation. Doing a 10 trial ABX and repeating it 1000 times isn´t the same as to ask what number of trials it needs to get a significant result when delivering 60% correct answers.
In the case of a 10 trial ABX the probability to get 6 correct answers by random guessing is p = 0.377 , so the expected value to get this result when doing the same test 1000 times is 377 tests with this result.

But otoh if you do a 80 trial ABX then you´ll have a significant result on SL=0.05 level if the participant got 60% correct answers.
P(48 l 80) = 0.046 .

Btw, doing an ABX without training of the participant isn´t a good idea as it is known that the internal mental processes are more involving compared to A-B tests.
Doing such tests without positive controls isn´t a good idea.
Doing an 10 trial ABX isn´t a good idea unless the detection ability of the participant isn´t really high (means > 90% ) otherwise the probability of committing an error of the second kind (means to not reject the null hypothesis although it is false) will be way to large.
I don't know why you interperted my simulation as a human being doing 1000 ABX tests. It would take at least several months if I am going to do that, unless I don't listen at all but guess. A more reasonable assumption is 1000 different person doing the same ABX test.

I just wonder are you too sensitive about what I said because of your previous history in debating with other people in this or other forums? I didn't ever mentioned p-value in my post. If you want to find someone to start such a debate, find someone else, not me.
 

Jakob1863

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
573
Likes
155
Location
Germany
I simply cited your post and pointed out that it described a different situation and added some general advice that should be taken into consideration when doing controlled listening experiments _and_ being interested in getting _correct_ results.

Thought it could be of interest to some readers..... :)
 
Last edited:

Jinjuku

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,278
Likes
1,180
I attached a simple html app to simulate brute forced ABX. The questions and answers are randomly generated and every time browser is refreshed a new set of results will come out. Here is a sample result:

6/10 or above in 1000 tests: 428
7/10 or above in 1000 tests: 187
8/10 or above in 1000 tests: 51
9/10 or above in 1000 tests: 9
10/10 in 1000 tests: 1

Which means in this particular simulation, a wild guess without listening can yield 428 positive results in 1000 tests with 10 trials if 6/10 or above is considered as "pass". Also, it is not uncommon to see zero in 10/10 since the chance is very low.

Not sure who you are thinking of that doesn't understand. Your array and my understanding line up. Someone even wins the lottery now and again but they were still 100% guessing what the #'s were going to be.

My point is you need to flip an awful lot of coins to get what seem to be non-randomized results. while doing 10 coin flips 1000 times, by distribution, should net you at least one sequence where it all comes up heads while not impossible, highly improbable.

Just to put this into context I've been offering up to $10,000 to someones $2000 for an 18 out of 20 correct choice. Loser pays travel expenses. I understand they are flipping coins. If I could get 1000 audiophiles to do this I'd be well off indeed.
 
Last edited:

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,499
Likes
5,417
Location
UK
Does the randomness of coin flipping effect the eventual outcome? You let me know how many times you have a flip a coin to get something other than a ~ 50/50 difference.
Sorry, my question wasn't clear looking back. I was asking how many tests did the subject do with the cables, that ended with 60% right?
 
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 think this is called a tangent :) And thanks Amir for confirming your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps if that PC that was being removed from the listening room had a fan based cooling system which was audible, THEN there would be some benefit to the MicroRendu :)
Absolutely. That functionality of being able to place a PC in a remote location is absolutely useful. That should be the main reason people buy these streamers.
 

Oliver Hyams

New Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
4
Likes
2
I am a newbie here, but a long-time audio equipment buyer, and a relatively recent convert to computer audio transports.

I have read this thread with great interest, and I did so before I got an ISO Regen. Despite Amir's sterling work on measurements, I find that USB "enhancements" such as the ISO Regen do make a (positive!) difference to the sound. The latter made the sound more rich and rounded than before. How do I know? Because I use my vinyl system, and a good vinyl pressing of the digital recording that I am hearing through the digital replay system, as my standard/reference. I am well used to assessing evidence very carefully as part of my (non-scientific) profession, so I am thinking that there must be something going on with e.g. the Regen and the Recovery.

Also, the sound differs significantly according to whether I have the music file on an M.2 SATA SSD in a slot on the motherboard (with the Windows 10 Pro operating system on the M.2 SSD) or a SATA 2.5 inch SSD (the latter being a good Samsung one, the former being reasonable Crucial one) via a (standard) SATA cable. The comparison was done on the same computer, and there was a very clear difference, the sound when the music data file was on the M.2 SSD being considerably clearer and more life-like than on the Samsung.

Amir: are you saying that all differences heard between signals fed (1) via a Regen or a Recovery and (2) without it are auditory hallucinations, or the result of self-persuasion?

I may have missed something in regard to cables too: I find that they sound very different from one another. Is that an illusion too? My very (IT) techie brother-in-law refuses to try an "audiophile" mains lead to feed his Peachtree DAC because he refuses to believe that a mains cable can make any difference to the sound. I have many audiophile mains cables and no interest whatsoever in preferring one to another, and whether or not I prefer one to another, I certainly find that the sound is different when the mains cable is changed.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,381
Location
Seattle Area
Amir: are you saying that all differences heard between signals fed (1) via a Regen or a Recovery and (2) without it are auditory hallucinations, or the result of self-persuasion?
Neither. The problem is that from run to run, what we think we "hear," changes. The sound can be identical and yet we perceive differences. You can even "not want it to be different" and still hear it as different! Many factors go into our perception and sound is but one.

The way to avoid this problem is to conduct a test where a) you don't know if the device is or is not in the path and b) do that at least 8 to 10 times. Then tally the results.

This is simple to do. Train a loved one to put or take out the device once a day without you knowing. Use a towel or something over the setup. Everyday you use your system, mark whether you think the device is in, or not. Then at the end, compare your list with that of the person who was making the switch. I am confident that you will find that your voting was not consistent with the device being in or out of the system.

I may have missed something in regard to cables too: I find that they sound very different from one another. Is that an illusion too? My very (IT) techie brother-in-law refuses to try an "audiophile" mains lead to feed his Peachtree DAC because he refuses to believe that a mains cable can make any difference to the sound. I have many audiophile mains cables and no interest whatsoever in preferring one to another, and whether or not I prefer one to another, I certainly find that the sound is different when the mains cable is changed.
Unfortunately "not believing" or "not wanting" will not fix the problem above. The mere fact that a change has been made (e.g. a new cable) will cause you to pay more attention to the music and all of a sudden you hear more detail. That detail was always there. But you had not focused to hear it. Once you hear it in the new cable, then your mind gets conditioned to think that the old cable was not as good. And that is what happens.

The only way to get to the "truth" is to run the test multiple times where you don't know if a change is made at all. Indeed instruct your loved one above to sometimes make no change.

It would be great if you could run this test and report back the outcome. For your trouble/loved one's efforts, I am happy to send you a $100 Amazon gift certificate! So I hope you do it.

For now, you are definitely NOT delusional, hallucinating, or anything of the sort. You are simply being human. :)

And welcome aboard! :)
 
Top Bottom